Search

Freshwater fisheries and biodiversity have substantial economic, socio-cultural, and ecological value, but face severe and mounting anthropogenic threats. Canada's freshwater fisheries are not exempt from this, and provide excellent opportunities to better understand these overlooked and undervalued systems. Using expert and chain-referral sampling, we surveyed practitioners from across Canada about the management of freshwater fisheries. We used a mixed methods approach to identify and describe in detail many important aspects of the above processes, including 10 persistent and innate challenges in (1) bureaucratic sprawl, (2) lack of priority, (3) scope, (4) competing interests, (5) political inconstancy, (6) socio-ecological complexity, (7) limited tools, (8) geographies and scale, (9) reactivity, and (10) intersectoral frictions. Many of these challenges defy conventional problem solving (e.g., advocacy, basic science), leading to chronic incapacity and triage management in some freshwater fisheries. We highlight opportunities to increase management capacity, using innovation where conventional solutions fall short (e.g., using novel technologies to increase management scope). Achieving sustainability in Canadian freshwater fisheries will require ingenuity and supportive contributions beyond those that currently exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fisheries management and conservation require consideration of fish, habitat, and people. In fisheries science, a growing body of research on human values, perspectives, and behaviours around fish—known as 'human dimensions' research—has emerged from the realization that management and conservation require a better understanding of people. Surveys are a common and versatile tool in human dimensions research, but not all surveys are equal. Large-scale, probabilistic surveys draw random samples from known populations (e.g., all license-holding recreational fishers in a jurisdiction) and represent the 'gold standard' in survey research. However, these surveys may fall short of this standard for various reasons. Surveys using non-probabilistic sampling are also common in human dimensions research. Non-probabilistic surveys are attractive to researchers facing time, cost, and other constraints, but differ notably from their probabilistic counterparts: data from non-probabilistic samples are typically unfit for population estimates and other inferences due their uncertain representativeness. Nonetheless, a wealth of research with non-probabilistic data within and outside of fisheries (e.g., in health sciences) suggests that these methods have valid applications and advantages in some contexts. We reviewed the literature on non-probabilistic surveys and sampling in the human dimensions of fisheries, and explored seminal literature from other thematic areas where such methods are common, to better understand their strengths, weaknesses, and applications relative to probabilistic methods. Here, we describe (1) how researchers have used non-probabilistic methods to study the human dimensions of fisheries, (2) how mismatching research questions, objectives, and methods can produce 'awkward surveys,' and (3) how researchers can use non-probabilistic surveys in ways that invoke their methodological strengths. While uncertain representativeness may limit the utility of non-probabilistic data in some contexts, non-probabilistic methods are time- and cost-effective, and have distinct advantages in studies of niche groups and phenomena, emergent or understudied phenomena, and in supplementary roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although it is assumed that the outcomes from scientific research inform management and policy, the so‐called knowledge–action gap (i.e., the disconnect between scientific knowledge and its application) is a recognition that there are many reasons why new knowledge is not always embraced by knowledge users. The concept of knowledge co‐production has gained popularity within the environmental and conservation research communities as a mechanism of bridging the gap between knowledge and action, but has yet to be fully embraced in fisheries research. Here we describe what co‐production is, outline its benefits (relative to other approaches to research) and challenges, and provide practical guidance on how to embrace and enact knowledge co‐production within fisheries research. Because co‐production is an iterative and context‐dependent process, there is no single way to do it, but there are best practices that can facilitate the generation of actionable research through respectful and inclusive partnerships. We present several brief case studies where we describe examples of where co‐production has worked in practice and the benefits it has accrued. As more members of the fisheries science and management community effectively engage in co‐production, it will be important to reflect on the processes and share lessons with others. We submit that co‐production has manifold benefits for applied science and should lead to meaningful improvements in fisheries management, conservation, and governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the perspectives of knowledge users and the demands of their decision-making environment would benefit researchers looking to enhance the utility of the knowledge they generate. Using the Fraser River Pacific salmon fishery as a case study, we investigate the views of 49 government employees and stakeholders regarding the barriers to incorporating new knowledge into fisheries management. Our study uses analysis of qualitative data structured by a knowledge–action framework, which revealed that 90% of respondents perceived the contextual dimension (e.g., institutional structures and norms) as a barrier for incorporating new knowledge, followed by barriers related to the characteristics of knowledge actors (52% of respondents), characteristics of the knowledge (27%), time and timing (27%), knowledge transfer strategies (17%), and relational dimension (8%). The identified barriers have indirect–direct relationship with knowledge producers and appear hierarchical in nature. We note that informal relationships can enable conditions whereby knowledge users can access new knowledge, and knowledge producers can gain insights on users' needs. We discuss lessons learned from the case, which we believe can be applied more beyond fisheries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Telemetry studies have produced fundamental knowledge on animal biology and ecology that has the potential to improve management of aquatic resources such as fisheries. However, the use and integration of telemetry-derived knowledge into practice remain tenuous, so we surveyed 212 fish telemetry experts to understand existing barriers for incorporating telemetry-derived knowledge into fisheries management practices. We apply a sociological knowledge–action framework to structure the findings, which revealed four primary challenges to integrating telemetry findings into management: (1) the perceived uncertainties and unclear relevance of telemetry findings; (2) the underlying motivations and constrained rationalities of actors that can lead to inaction or suboptimal decisions; (3) the constraints of institutions, governance structures, and lack of organizational support, and (4) time and mismatches in scale, culture, and world views. On a more positive note, the relational dimension (collaboration, trust, and relationship building) appears to be important for overcoming and avoiding barriers. We further provide recommendations to navigate these perceived barriers and argue that these lessons also apply to other fields of applied ecology, conservation, and resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars across all disciplines have long been interested in how knowledge moves within and beyond their community of peers. Rapid environmental changes and calls for sustainable management practices mean the best knowledge possible is needed to inform decisions, policies, and practices to protect biodiversity and sustainably manage vulnerable natural resources. Although the conservation literature on knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KM) has grown in recent years, much of it is based on context-specific case studies. This presents a challenge for learning cumulative lessons from KE and KM research and thus effectively using knowledge in conservation and natural resources management. Although continued research on the gap between knowledge and action is valuable, overarching conceptual frameworks are now needed to enable summaries and comparisons across diverse KE-KM research. We propose a knowledge-action framework that provides a conceptual roadmap for future research and practice in KE/KM with the aim of synthesizing lessons learned from contextual case studies and guiding the development and testing of hypotheses in this domain. Our knowledge-action framework has 3 elements that occur at multiple levels and scales: knowledge production (e.g., academia and government), knowledge mediation (e.g., knowledge networks, actors, relational dimension, and contextual dimension), and knowledge-based action (e.g., instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual). The framework integrates concepts from the sociology of science in particular, and serves as a guide to further comprehensive understanding of knowledge exchange and mobilization in conservation and sustainable natural resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for telemetry data to answer complex questions about aquatic animals and their interactions with the environment is limited by the capacity to store, manage, and access data across the research community. Large telemetry networks and databases exist, but are limited by the actions of researchers to share their telemetry data. Promoting data sharing and understanding researchers' views on open practices is a major step toward enhancing the role of big data in ecology and resources management. We surveyed 307 fish telemetry researchers to understand their perspectives and experiences on data sharing. A logistic regression revealed that data sharing was positively related to researchers with collaborative tendencies, who belong to a telemetry network, who are prolific publishers, and who express altruistic motives for their research. Researchers were less likely to have shared telemetry data if they engage in radio and (or) acoustic telemetry, work for regional government, and value the time it takes to complete a research project. We identify and provide examples of both benefits and concerns that respondents have about sharing telemetry data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approaches to managing inland fisheries vary between systems and regions but are often based on large-scale marine fisheries principles and thus limited and outdated. Rarely do they adopt holistic approaches that consider the complex interplay among humans, fish, and the environment. We argue that there is an urgent need for a shift in inland fisheries management towards holistic and transdisciplinary approaches that embrace the principles of social-ecological systems at the watershed scale. The interconnectedness of inland fisheries with their associated watershed (biotic, abiotic, and humans) make them extremely complex and challenging to manage and protect. For this reason, the watershed is a logical management unit. To assist management at this scale, we propose a framework that integrates disparate concepts and management paradigms to facilitate inland fisheries management and sustainability. We contend that inland fisheries need to be managed as social-ecological watershed system (SEWS). The framework supports watershed-scale and transboundary governance to manage inland fisheries, and transdisciplinary projects and teams to ensure relevant and applicable monitoring and research. We discuss concepts of social-ecological feedback and interactions of multiple stressors and factors within/between the social-ecological systems. Moreover, we emphasize that management, monitoring, and research on inland fisheries at the watershed scale are needed to ensure long-term sustainable and resilient fisheries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academics as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to a total of 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time is six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. Majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to the ‘stress’ on the peer-review system (i.e., reviewer and editor fatigue), while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times appear to be greater for early career researchers and can also have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues were also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study view the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer review models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the development of electronic tagging and tracking equipment to trace troubling issues in animals. It highlights the impact of the equipment to habitat relations, animal-environment interactions and hidden movement patters of animals. Also emphasized is the diverse range of people associated with animal-tracking studies.

We sought to improve the understanding of delayed mortality in migrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) captured and released in freshwater fisheries. Using biotelemetry, blood physiology, and reflex assessments, we evaluated the relative roles of gill net injury and air exposure and investigated whether using a recovery box improved survival. Fish (n=238), captured by beach seine, were allocated to four treatment groups: captured only, air exposed, injured, and injured and air exposed. Only half of the fish in each group were provided with a 15-min facilitated recovery. After treatment, fish were radio-tagged and released to resume their migration. Blood status was assessed in 36 additional untagged fish sampled after the four treatments. Compared with fish sampled immediately on capture, all treatments resulted in elevated plasma lactate and cortisol concentrations. After air exposure, plasma osmolality was elevated and reflexes were significantly impaired relative to the control and injured treatments. Injured fish exhibited reduced short-term migration speed by 3.2 km/d and had a 14.5% reduced survival to subnatal watersheds compared to controls. The 15-min facilitated recovery improved reflex assessment relative to fish released immediately but did not affect survival. We suggest that in sockeye salmon migrating in cool water temperatures (~13º-16ºC), delayed mortality can result from injury and air exposure, perhaps through sublethal stress, and that injury created additive delayed mortality likely via secondary infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fate of captured and released fish in recreational fisheries depends in large part on fisher handling and behavior. As such, there is a need for promoting adoption of responsible fishing practices. We interviewed recreational sockeye salmon anglers in the lower Fraser River, British Columbia, to assess their awareness of responsible fishing practices and identify gaps where improved education could promote conservation-oriented behaviors. Based on our interview data, we developed three latent class models of salmon angler typologies based on: 1) anglers' fishing behaviors and preferences, 2) anglers' perceived risks to salmon survival due to post-capture live release, and 3) anglers' level of support for education programs. In the first model, we identified salmon-only anglers (33% of sample), lake-species specialists (46%), and all-around anglers (21%). These classes were differentiated primarily by non-salmon fishing activities (e.g., other target species). In the second model, we found four classes of anglers who differed with regards to key factors they thought affected post-release survival: air exposure (39% of sample); water temperature (24%); hook location (22%); and revival effort (15%). In the third model, we found anglers were either supporters (73%) or non-supporters (27%) of angler education programs. Heterogeneity existed among anglers but we found no correlations in angler classes across models, nor any significant demographic or experiential predictors of class membership. Respondents generally had high awareness and application of catch-and-release best practices, with lake-species specialists rating a higher awareness and usage of recommended catch-and-release technique, and were significantly more likely to cut the line on deeply hooked fish than other groups. Our findings provide resource managers with important insight into the attitudes and behaviors of sockeye salmon anglers in the important lower Fraser River recreational fishery. Our findings also highlight, however, the need for further research on the determinants of angler beliefs and behavior in order to customize programs to build anglers' awareness and adoption of responsible fishing practices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

British Columbia salmon fisheries are encouraging anglers' adoption of responsible and selective fishing methods to avoid or live-release vulnerable non-target species. Promoting adoption of responsible fishing will require that managers understand angler motivations and fishing behavior. During interviews with Fraser River recreational salmon anglers, we found that their most common information channel on responsible fishing was the Internet and interpersonal interaction while fishing. These did not necessarily align with their preferred information sources. Latent-class cluster analysis identified three patterns of anglers' current and preferred information sourcing. We found traditional (35% of sample), investigative (33%), and networking (32%) anglers, who were differentiated by their preferences for obtaining information via in-person communication, regulation handbooks, media, and the Internet. Heterogeneous communication preferences imply that fisheries managers need a mix of outreach approaches to effectively engage all anglers in responsible fishing practices, even when anglers are targeting the same species in a reasonably discrete geographic location. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the online snowball-style survey of anglers that have used anglers in North America. It mentions that circle hooks are deemed by the respondents as useful for certain species and types of fisheries, but of little use to others. It notes that most respondents have stressed the need for additional education about circle hooks. It also emphasizes that regulations requiring circle hooks should be used in specific instances.

This article examines how potential users of scientific and local/traditional/experiential knowledge evaluate new claims to knowing, using 67 interviews with government employees and non-governmental stakeholders involved in co-managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Research has consistently shown that there are major obstacles to moving new knowledge into policy, management, and public domains. New concepts such as Knowledge Exchange (KE) and Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) are being used to investigate these obstacles, but the processes by which potential users evaluate (sometimes competing) knowledge claims remain poorly understood. We use concepts from the sociology of science and find that potential users evaluate new knowledge claims based on three broad criteria: (1) the perceived merits of the claim, (2) perceptions of the character and motivation of the claimant, and (3) considerations of the social and political context of the claim. However, government employees and stakeholders have different interpretations of these criteria, leading to different knowledge preferences and normative expectations of scientists and other claimants. We draw both theoretical and practical lessons from these findings. With respect to theory, we argue that the sociology of science provides valuable insights into the political dimensions of knowledge and should be explicitly incorporated into KE/KMb research. With respect to practice, our findings underline the need for scientists and other claimants to make conscious decisions about whose expectations they hope to meet in their communications and engagement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The knowledge‐action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long‐term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short‐term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Freshwater biodiversity loss is one of the greatest environmental threats in our changing world. Although declines have been reported extensively in the literature, much less attention has been devoted to solving the freshwater biodiversity crisis relative to other ecosystems. The recently proposed Emergency Recovery Plan for Freshwater Biodiversity (Tickner et al., 2020, BioScience, 70(4), 330–342) outlines an ambitious but necessary set of overarching actions that can help "bend the curve" for freshwater biodiversity declines. This plan is timely given the present opportunity to adjust freshwater biodiversity targets in international biodiversity agreements and to encourage meeting targets of relevant Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, relying solely on a trickle down from such agreements to national and local scales will likely take too long, given the immediate urgency of the situation. Here, we advocate for a broader, concerted effort from all actors to ensure the Emergency Recovery Plan meaningfully influences the actions of practitioners at a local scale. We outline the roles and responsibilities of actors involved with policy, research, professional bodies and societies, advocacy, and industry, as well as practitioners themselves, in achieving this goal. It is our hope that this overview facilitates the real‐world actions needed to execute the Emergency Recovery Plan so that we can indeed "bend the curve" for freshwater biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practitioners and policymakers working in environmental arenas make decisions that can have large impacts on ecosystems. Basing such decisions on high‐quality evidence about the effectiveness of different interventions can often maximize the success of policy and management. Accordingly, it is vital to understand how environmental professionals working at the science‐policy interface view and use different types of evidence, including evidence syntheses that collate and summarize available knowledge on a specific topic to save time for decision‐makers. We interviewed 84 senior environmental professionals in Canada working at the science‐policy interface to explore their confidence in, and use of, evidence syntheses within their organizations. Interviewees value evidence syntheses because they increase confidence in decision‐making, particularly for high‐profile or risky decisions. Despite this enthusiasm, the apparent lack of available syntheses for many environmental issues means that use can be limited and tends to be opportunistic. Our research suggests that if relevant, high quality evidence syntheses exist, they are likely to be used and embraced in decision‐making spheres. Therefore, efforts to increase capacity for conducting evidence syntheses within government agencies and/or funding such activities by external bodies have the potential to enable evidence‐based decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high-quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. Topics include the best practices for applied environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes, and the team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts.

Surveillance of animal movements using electronic tags (i.e., biotelemetry) has emerged as an essential tool for both basic and applied ecological research and monitoring. Advances in animal tracking are occurring simultaneously with changes to technology, in an evolving global scientific culture that increasingly promotes data sharing and transparency. However, there is a risk that misuse of biotelemetry data could increase the vulnerability of animals to human disturbance or exploitation. For the most part, telemetry data security is not a danger to animals or their ecosystems, but for some high-risk cases, as with species' with high economic value or at-risk populations, available knowledge of their movements may promote active disturbance or worse, potential poaching. We suggest that when designing animal tracking studies it is incumbent on scientists to consider the vulnerability of their study animals to risks arising from the implementation of the proposed program, and to take preventative measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Telemetry is an increasingly common tool for studying the ecology of wild fish, with great potential to provide valuable information for management and conservation. For researchers to conduct a robust telemetry study, many essential considerations exist related to selecting the appropriate tag type, fish capture and tagging methods, tracking protocol, data processing and analyses, and interpretation of findings. For telemetry-derived knowledge to be relevant to managers and policy makers, the research approach must consider management information needs for decision-making, while end users require an understanding of telemetry technology (capabilities and limitations), its application to fisheries research and monitoring (study design), and proper interpretation of results and conclusions (considering the potential for biases and proper recognition of associated uncertainties). To help bridge this gap, we provide a set of considerations and a checklist for researchers to guide them in conducting reliable and management-relevant telemetry studies, and for managers to evaluate the reliability and relevance of telemetry studies so as to better integrate findings into management plans. These considerations include implicit assumptions, technical limitations, ethical and biological realities, analytical merits, and the relevance of study findings to decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence‐based management of fisheries means being continually open to new sources of scientific findings and data, but this is difficult when there is uncertainty or disagreement about their value and utility. We submit that this is the case for rapidly advancing animal tracking research, or biotelemetry. While biotelemetry science has been broadly accepted in fisheries and aquatic research communities, its incorporation into fisheries policy and management has been limited. To gain insight into this disjuncture, we conducted an exploratory study of perspectives on biotelemetry among government employees and nongovernmental stakeholders involved in co‐managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Using a knowledge mobilization theoretical framework, we examine how respondents perceived biotelemetry research across three dimensions: its epistemic value (its capacity to generate useful and valid new knowledge), its practical value (relative to real‐world considerations such as cost), and its degree of fit or discord with existing policy and management practices. We find a wide range of views between both groups, which may explain the hesitant uptake of biotelemetry into policy and management in this case. We conclude by advancing several research questions as a guide for future study of the integration of new sources of knowledge into evidence‐based management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electronic tags are significantly improving our understanding of aquatic animal behavior and are emerging as key sources of information for conservation and management practices. Future aquatic integrative biology and ecology studies will increasingly rely on data from electronic tagging. Continued advances in tracking hardware and software are needed to provide the knowledge required by managers and policymakers to address the challenges posed by the world's changing aquatic ecosystems. We foresee multiplatform tracking systems for simultaneously monitoring the position, activity, and physiology of animals and the environment through which they are moving. Improved data collection will be accompanied by greater data accessibility and analytical tools for processing data, enabled by new infrastructure and cyberinfrastructure. To operationalize advances and facilitate integration into policy, there must be parallel developments in the accessibility of education and training, as well as solutions to key governance and legal issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even with long-standing management and extensive science support, North American inland fish and fisheries still face many conservation and management challenges. We used a grand challenges approach to identify critical roadblocks that if removed would help solve important problems in the management and long-term conservation of North American inland fish and fisheries. We identified seven grand challenges within three themes (valuation, governance, and externalities) and 34 research needs and management actions. The major themes identified are to (1) raise awareness of diverse values associated with inland fish and fisheries, (2) govern inland fish and fisheries to satisfy multiple use and conservation objectives, and (3) ensure productive inland fisheries given nonfishing sector externalities. Addressing these grand challenges will help the broader community understand the diverse values of inland fish and fisheries, promote open forums for engagement of diverse stakeholders in fisheries management, and better integrate the inland fish sector into the greater water and land use policy process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though reported capture fisheries are dominated by marine production, inland fish and fisheries make substantial contributions to meeting the challenges faced by individuals, society, and the environment in a changing global landscape. Inland capture fisheries and aquaculture contribute over 40% to the world's reported finfish production from less than 0.01% of the total volume of water on earth. These fisheries provide food for billions and livelihoods for millions of people worldwide. Herein, using supporting evidence from the literature, we review 10 reasons why inland fish and fisheries are important to the individual (food security, economic security, empowerment), to society (cultural services, recreational services, human health and well-being, knowledge transfer and capacity building), and to the environment (ecosystem function and biodiversity, as aquatic 'canaries', the 'green food' movement). However, the current limitations to valuing the services provided by inland fish and fisheries make comparison with other water resource users extremely difficult. This list can serve to demonstrate the importance of inland fish and fisheries, a necessary first step to better incorporating them into agriculture, land-use, and water resource planning, where they are currently often underappreciated or ignored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Freshwater biodiversity is in a state of crisis. The recent development of a global emergency recovery plan to "bend the curve" for freshwater biodiversity lacks the necessary details for implementation in a regional context. Using Canada as an example, we describe a toolbox intended to equip decision-makers and practitioners with evidence-based tools for addressing threats to freshwater biodiversity. The toolbox includes two rubric-based scoring tools to inform users about the level of the reliability (e.g., transparent methods, critical appraisal) and relevancy to Canadian freshwater systems (e.g., habitat, species) of an evidence synthesis. Those scoring tools were applied to 259 evidence syntheses, also included in the toolbox, across fifty freshwater management actions. Habitat Creation, Invasive Species Removal, and Revegetation were found to have reliable evidence syntheses but there remain several actions for which the syntheses are not robust and where the evidence base is unreliable. We suggest the need for more rigorously conducted empirical tests of freshwater management actions, further evidence synthesis, and clearer conveyance of implications for decision-makers and practitioners. Decision-makers and practitioners should use the two scoring tools on syntheses outside this project and tailor them to their regions. Given the global interest in addressing the freshwater biodiversity crisis and the necessity to engage and empower decision-makers and practitioners on a regional basis, we anticipate this toolbox will serve as a model for regions beyond Canada. Future studies to understand if and how the toolbox is used will be needed to make refinements and ensure it benefits freshwater biodiversity. • Current management of freshwater ecosystems fails to address the global freshwater biodiversity crisis • Evidence syntheses and reviews are a valuable resource to decision-makers and practitioners for informing conservation actions • The toolbox consists of over 250 freshwater management evidence syntheses, scored based on the included appraisal tools • Syntheses demonstrate a poor systematic review conduct but show a strong potential for regional relevance and applicability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Co-management is widely seen as a way of improving environmental governance and empowering communities. When successful, co-management enhances the validity and legitimacy of decision-making, while providing stakeholders with influence over processes and outcomes that directly impact them. However, our research with participants in co-management across several cases leads us to argue that many of the individuals who contribute to co-management are subject to significant personal stress arising from both the logistical and social/emotional demands of participation in these processes. We argue that the literature on co-management has touched on this only indirectly, and that personal stress is a major challenge for participants that ought to be integrated into research agendas and addressed by policy-makers. In this article, we review the contours of the personal stress issue as it has appeared in our observations of co-management events and interviews with participants. While these findings are partial and preliminary, we argue that personal stress has theoretical and practical significance to the broader literature and process design. We conclude the article with recommendations for participants, researchers and policy-makers about how to consider and respond to problems of personal stress. • Co-management can cause personal stress among community-level participants. • Stress is caused by costs, lack of support, conflict, and uncertainty. • Scholars should incorporate individual-level variables into research agendas. • Stress can be mitigated by providing resources and reforming processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers step-by-step instructions for various education-oriented activities including conducting undergraduate research, writing effective scholarship applications and analyzing research data.