Synergistic Integration of Genomics and Ecoevolutionary Dynamics for Sustainable Fisheries : A Reply to Kuparinen and Uusi-Heikkilä

The reply by Kuparinen and Uusi-Heikkilä [1] on our review paper about ‘Harnessing the power of genomics to secure the future of seafood’ [2] suggested that our plea for a more rigorous implementation of genomics-informed approaches to fisheries management needs to be ‘digested with consideration’. Their main point of contention is that to realistically account for the multiple drivers underpinning fish population abundances, ecosystem-based management is the future for assessing and managing fisheries. They also pointed out that a practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management has been lagging behind relative to the ever-growing conceptual and methodological developments in this field. This is identical to our argument about genomic approaches; namely, that despite the solid demonstration of the usefulness of genomics to inform seafood production and conservation (e.g [125_TD$DIFF][123_TD$DIFF]., [3]), genomic tools are seldom applied and integrated into management decisions. In other words, the path that would allow the implementation of genomics and ecosystem-based management is riddled with similar problems. Consequently, we do not see our review [2] and the views of Kuparinen and Uusi-Heikkilä [1] as fundamentally opposed. Instead, we can only agree that ecosystem-based and genomic approaches should be integrated tightly to maximize synergistic benefits. Kuparinen and Uusi-Heikkilä [1] also partly disagreed with our conclusion that genomics is urgently needed to improve fisheries management. This is because they were apparently left with the impression that we argued that maintenance of genetic diversity is more important than keeping populations at sufficient abundances to ensure productivity, ecological functionality, and resilience. While it is true that we argued that adaptive genetic diversity is essential towards maintaining the evolutionary potential of species in the face of new challenges (e.g., overfishing, environmental change) [4], we certainly did not deny that a sufficient abundance has to be the primary focus to ensure sustainable fishing practices. Quite the contrary, we argued that careful management and production strategies are required to secure a sustainable future for the seafood industry. To reach this goal, we pressed that the best scientific knowledge must be used and implemented to inform decision making. Application of genomics-informed methods allows the definition of ‘real’ as opposed to merely administrative units and thus would provide crucial biological information necessary for the accurate identification of fisheries management units, which is fundamental to enable proactive population management [5]. For instance, traditional scientific fisheries management relies on stock assessment models to predict variability in stock–recruitment relationships to determine abundance and sustainable catch limits for the corresponding management units. These management units are still predominantly based on ‘administrative’ units, which are often loosely connected with the true population structure of a species, despite the demonstrated ability of genomic data to delineate populations accurately [6]. This contradicts the very basis of fisheries science whereby the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be achieved only by the efficient management of distinct populations. There is little doubt that relying on administrative rather than real biological units is suboptimal towards the goal of maintaining healthy fisheries. Hence, our main point of proposing a more rigorous integration of genomics into fisheries management practices was essentially about helping to keep (real) populations at sufficient abundances to ensure their productivity and resilience in the long term, consistent with Kuparinen and Uusi-Heikkilä’s [1] arguments.