ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil

Sharov,, Alexei

doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsaa075pmid: N/A

Abstract The year 2018 marked the 100th anniversary of the publication of paper “On the question of the biological basis of fisheries” by F.I. Baranov considered a cornerstone paper of modern fishery science. Baranov formalized population dynamics by describing changes in population abundance using differential equations, introducing the concept of instantaneous fishing and natural mortality rates, and developing his catch equation, which is the foundation of most modern age-structured stock assessment models. Baranov was the first to show the effect of fishing on population structure based on theoretical grounds. At the time of its publication, Baranov’s paper did not receive much attention in Russia and was completely unknown to scientists in the West. The second publication (On the question of the dynamics of the fishing industry, 1925) received substantial criticism from many and sparked a furious debate between Baranov and his opponents that lasted for several decades. The history and content of those debates, expressed in multiple papers by Baranov, is still largely unknown. I describe the essence of arguments by Baranov and his opponents. The story of these scientific debates reveals how different philosophical concepts and dominant points of view evolved through time. “The trail of fishery science is strewn with opinions of those who, while partly right, were wholly wrong”. Michael Graham, 1943, “The Fish Gate” Introduction In 1918, young Russian engineer, Fyodor Ilyich Baranov, published a paper “On the question of the biological basis of fisheries” (1918), which is considered by many a cornerstone paper of modern fishery science. For the first time, Baranov formalized fish population dynamics by describing changes in population abundance using differential equations, introduced the concept of instantaneous fishing and natural mortality rates, and developed his famous catch equation, which is the heart of most age-structured stock assessment models. Baranov was the first to show the effect of fishing on population size and age structure based on theoretical (mathematical) grounds and developed the formal concept of optimal exploitation. Unfortunately, Baranov’s paper did not receive much attention from biologists in Russia (later Soviet Union) at the time of its publication and was generally unknown to scientists in other countries at least until late 1930s (Quinn, 2008). However, his other publication “On the question of the dynamics of the fishing industry” (Baranov, 1925a) received substantial criticism from many prominent biologists in the Soviet Union and sparked a furious debate between Baranov and his opponents that lasted for several decades. Unlike his formal theory and catch equation, the history and content of those debates is still largely unknown to the international scientific community. This paper attempts to fill this gap, by describing the principal elements of Baranov’s work and the essence of the debate between Baranov and his opponents. This debate included disputes over the presence or absence of the effects of fishing on fish populations, the applicability and usefulness of abstract mathematical models to model fish populations, and the possibility of stock overfishing and the role of recruitment in fish population dynamics. The story of these scientific debates reveals how different philosophical concepts and dominant points of view in fisheries science evolved through time and, hopefully, will provide useful lessons to modern fishery biologists. Prologue Fyodor Ilyich Baranov was born in 1886 in Orel, Russia, but grew up in a large city of Nizhny Novgorod situated at the confluence of the Oka and Volga rivers in Central Russia. He received his primary education in gymnasium, a typical school for middle class in the 19th century Russia, which traditionally focused on humanitarian education—languages (Greek, Latin, German, French, and Church Slavonic), logic, and philosophy. However, young Baranov was particularly interested in the natural sciences. According to Fridman (1987), Baranov recalled: “I was interested early in natural and technical sciences which were not part of the standard program in gymnasium, so I was reading a lot of books, got really interested in insect collections and later in fishing. I was actually more interested in designing and making fishing gear than fishing itself. I was making fishing poles, reels, jigs, I bent hooks, braided lines, learned how to knit nets” (Fridman, 1987). Baranov also recalled being very independent: “It seems to me that both in gymnasium and at the university I never asked somebody to explain me stuff. I constantly visited bookstores and used very intensively the Library of Polytechnical Institute” (Fridman, 1987). In 1904, Baranov entered the shipbuilding department of St. Petersburg Polytechnical Institute. According to Fridman (1987), Baranov wanted to study fisheries but none of the colleges offered classes in fisheries, so shipbuilding was the next closest occupation to his dream. In 1908, Baranov completed his graduation thesis in which he suggested engineering solutions to improve Shlick’s gyroscope that was built to stabilize the German passenger steamboat “Sylvania”. His work was considered outstanding and was published in the periodic journal of St. Petersburg Polytechnical Institute thus becoming his first published paper. Upon his graduation in 1909, Baranov received a diploma in marine engineering and was retained by the shipbuilding department to train for professorship. At the time, the title of engineer was indicative of the highest level of education, ensuring a respectable profession and substantial material wealth. Baranov had a well-defined path for a career in shipbuilding, but by October 1911, he decided to focus on studying fisheries and was subsequently hired by the Imperial Department of Agriculture. In 1915, Baranov was hired as professor of the newly created Department of Fisheries Technology, which became a part of the Moscow Institute of Fisheries (Mosrybtuz) since 1930. He served as the head of this department for the next 40 years. From the first steps of his career, Baranov was very interested in understanding the interaction between the fish stock and the fishery. He focused on the debate over the principal question: “Does a fishery have an effect on the targeted fish populations and can we predict it?” In 1914, Baranov published a small article “On the question of overfishing” (Baranov, 1914), in which he expressed for the first time his thoughts on the effect of fishing on fish populations. He wrote: “One of the most discussed topics is the diminishing of fish stocks, and subsequent reduction in catch and fish size. However, the main question is being neglected: what is the normal state of fisheries and is it possible to keep fish populations in pristine condition in the presence of fishing?” (Baranov, 1914). Using forest exploitation as an example, he argued that increase in logging activity will lead to an increase in harvest and profits until a certain point, after which both will decline. He argued further that at various levels of harvest an equilibrium will be reached (as long as there are enough seeds) and suggested that fishing will have similar effect on fish stocks. Where other people saw a sign of stock destruction attributed to excessive fishing, he saw a transition from one quasi equilibrium state of stock to another, following fishery development. To make his point, he cited the petition to English Parliament dated 1376 that requested the prohibition of a new fishing gear, “wondy choun”, similar to an oyster drag, that “takes too many small fish and damages the fishery itself”. He argued that claims of negative effects of fishing had been made at least as early as 500 years ago, as demonstrated by this petition. Similar claims about the negative effects of trawling, emerged regularly since then. However, he noted, fish stocks persisted, although with different characteristics relative to earlier times. He concluded that more knowledge about interaction between the fish and the fishery is required before claims of overfishing can be justified. Baranov appeared to be convinced as early as 1914 that increase in fishing pressure changes population parameters. However, increased fishing does not necessarily destroy the stock itself. Rather, it brings the population and the fishery to a new equilibrium. Baranov kept working on this idea and developed the formal mathematical theory that was presented a few years later. The formal life of fishes In 1918, Baranov published his fundamental paper “On the question of overfishing” (Baranov, 1918), where he presented the results of his theoretical analysis of the interaction between the fishery and fish stocks (Figure 2). The timing of publication, however, could not be worse. The country was going through the World War I (WWI), socialist revolution, and a civil war. The paper was published in an obscure to international community Russian journal. Although many years later this paper was translated from Russian on several occasions, most of the translations were in the form of technical notes with very limited distribution, and thus the original paper was essentially inaccessible to scientific community. Therefore, it would be useful to review here some principal points of his 1918 publication. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Fyodor Ilyich Baranov. Photograph from the archives of Professor S. Shibaev, Kaliningrad State Technical University. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Fyodor Ilyich Baranov. Photograph from the archives of Professor S. Shibaev, Kaliningrad State Technical University. Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Title page of Baranov’s (1918) paper “On the question of the biological basis of fisheries”. Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Title page of Baranov’s (1918) paper “On the question of the biological basis of fisheries”. The theoretical background that describes the changes in fish populations caused by fishing was outlined in the section appropriately titled “The formal life of fishes”. Baranov structured the paper in an unusual to traditional biologist format, by beginning his work with a list of important assumptions to build his theory upon, thus making it more similar to a formal mathematical study: “Let us imagine an ideal case with an isolated body of water where fishing is conducted at a constant rate for a long period of time and there are no sharp fluctuations of environmental factors that may affect population size. Suppose that A fingerlings hatch after spawning. As they grow, their numbers will diminish due to various sources of mortality. If we plot a graph with fish length on the X axis and the number of fish on the Y axis, we will get a ‘mortality curve’ that shows a gradual decline of the cohort abundance over time as they grow (Figure 3). We assume that the growth rate of all fish is equal and constant and there is no growth periodicity within a year. Let us now assume that spawning occurs continuously and each spawn produces A fingerlings. In this case, at any moment of time the population will consist of groups (cohorts) of continuously increasing size and age, and if we plot the number of fish at each size, we will get a ‘population curve’ which will be identical to the ‘mortality curve’ of a single cohort” (Figure 3). Figure 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Population curve identical to mortality curve in equilibrium conditions. Figure 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Population curve identical to mortality curve in equilibrium conditions. Therefore, concluded Baranov, if a fish population remains in equilibrium and its size and age structure remains constant, the “mortality” curve is identical to the “population” curve. He noted next that if the fish of legal size are distributed around the basin relatively evenly, the distribution of fish size in the catch should be representative of the size distribution in the population. This will be true for fish that are fully retained by the trawl, but some small fish will escape through the mesh, so the left, rising section of the catch curve is not representative of the total population curve (Figure 4). Therefore, an analysis of the catch curve structure only allows us to evaluate the size structure of fully captured fish in the population. Figure 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Catch curve showing partially selected (left portion of the curve) and fully selected (right side) fish sizes. Dashed line shows the number of fish in the catch if the fishig gear was fully selecting all size classes. Figure 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Catch curve showing partially selected (left portion of the curve) and fully selected (right side) fish sizes. Dashed line shows the number of fish in the catch if the fishig gear was fully selecting all size classes. In general, decrease in fish abundance dN in an elementary (very small) period of time dt should be proportional to the fish abundance: dNdt=-ZN,(1) where Z is the rate of decline, which is called the instantaneous mortality rate. (For convenience, currently established notations and symbols are used throughout the paper, which are different from the original symbols used by Baranov.) Integration of (1) produces Nt=-Ce-Zt,(2) where C is an integration constant, equal to initial abundance N0. If the fishing mortality (F) operates concurrently with natural mortality (M), then total mortality Z equals M + F and Nt=-Ce-M+Ft,(3) and Nt+1=Nte-(M+F).(4) Baranov compared the age and size structure of the fish stock under the assumption of equilibrium condition with the age and size structure of the fish that died because of fishing and natural mortality under these conditions and came to the conclusion that “if the fishery is in the state of equilibrium, the number of fish of the exploitable size that die due to fishing and natural causes is equal to the number of fish that recruit to the exploitable population as a result of growth, regardless of the level of mortality and the shape of the population curve”. This is a very important conclusion that he re-iterated multiple times in this and many other papers. He also demonstrated that a population in a steady-state equilibrium condition undergoes a transition period when fishing mortality is changed and reaches a new steady-state level with a different shape of population curve (Figure 5). Thus, concluded Baranov, what is often interpreted as overfishing is simply a transition from one state of the fishery to another if the increased mortality rate remains relatively constant. Figure 5. Open in new tabDownload slide Changes in age structure of exploited population in sequence of years, following increase in fishing mortality. The top curve represents the initial age structure. Curves following from top to bottom show a change in age structure with each additional year of increased fishing mortality. Figure 5. Open in new tabDownload slide Changes in age structure of exploited population in sequence of years, following increase in fishing mortality. The top curve represents the initial age structure. Curves following from top to bottom show a change in age structure with each additional year of increased fishing mortality. Baranov reviewed information on fish growth and concluded that fish growth is generally proportional to age, at least for the young and middle age of the species life time, before the onset of senility, and decided that size and age could be used interchangeably in the analysis of catch curves. Because size measurements are easy to obtain, unlike age, Baranov mostly operated with fish lengths in his analyses of specific case studies. To estimate the total weight of a fish stock, Baranov assumed that fish weight is proportional to the cube of fish length: P=ωl3,(5) and the stock weight is P=∫L∞N0e-zlωl3dl,(6) or P=RωL31+3zL+6zL2+6zL3,(7) where R is the number of fish of fully recruited size and ωL3 is the weight of fish at size L. Redefining the multiplication constant in the parentheses in (7), he expressed the average weight of fish in the population as PR=qωL3,(8) where q=1+3zL+6zL2+6zL3.(9) Baranov noted that fishing intensity determines the level of mortality rate and the shape of the population curve, thus affecting the average size and age of fish in the population and in the catch. He further showed that (7) can be used to estimate total mortality based on the size of the fish recruiting to the fishery and the average size of the fish in the catch. Therefore, based on this information, one can estimate total mortality and approximate it to an estimate of natural mortality if the there was little fishing and natural mortality was the principal component of total mortality, driving population abundance. As an example of practical use, Baranov proceeded with the analysis of North Sea plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) based on average size of plaice in Kattegat area using Danish biologist Johansen’s (1906) data. Baranov compared fish sizes for two periods, one in 1880s when fishing pressure was low and fishing was done only nearshore, and another in 1890s–1900s when Danish seines were introduced and fishing spread over all Kattegat area and estimated an annual natural mortality at 0.19 and annual losses to fishing at 0.44. After deriving the relationship between the catch weight and the mortality rate in (7), he calculated the equilibrium catch for a series of fixed natural mortality values, plotted against fishing mortality, effectively generating a series of what is now known as a yield-per-recruit curve (Figure 6), and noted that their shapes are defined by the value of M. When natural mortality is low, the maximum yield is very clearly defined, whereas for larger values of M, there is no clearly defined maximum, suggesting that nearly the same yield can be obtained over a large range of F. Baranov argued that this is exactly what was happening in the North Sea, where the total yield in weight remained relatively constant despite decades of increasing fishing effort and a decline in the average size of fish in the catch. Finally, Baranov explored the effect of minimum legal size of fish on total yield and developed equation for catch in weight as a function of total mortality Z and average size of fish in the catch L: C=N0FF+MwqL3e-ML.(10) However, this is much less know formula, compared with his famous catch equation: C=NFZ1-e-Z.(11) Figure 6. Open in new tabDownload slide Equilibrium yield as a function of fishing mortality. Each curve corresponds to different level of constant natural mortality M. M increases from top to bottom curve. Figure 6. Open in new tabDownload slide Equilibrium yield as a function of fishing mortality. Each curve corresponds to different level of constant natural mortality M. M increases from top to bottom curve. Interestingly, he did not present (11) explicitly in the paper. Baranov noted that in order to calculate annual fraction of losses to harvest relative to total annual losses, one needs to account for the fact that natural and fishing mortalities are acting concurrently, so the fraction of losses because of harvest is the product of total annual mortality φ and a ratio of instantaneous rates F and Z: φFF+M,(12) where φ=1-e-z.(13) To estimate the catch in numbers of fish, one would need to multiply estimated fraction of losses because of fishing by the number of fish at the start of the year. Although Baranov did not show it explicitly, this step appeared to be obvious. The full catch equation in its currently known form was most likely introduced by W. Ricker who termed it as Baranov’s catch equation (Ricker, 1975). Baranov’s (1918) paper was truly revolutionary for fishery science and could have had a huge influence if it had reached the scientific community at that time. Unfortunately, as discussed earlier, the problem with paper accessibility was exacerbated by a number of social and political reasons—war and revolution, followed by decades of country isolation by the West for political reasons, which resulted in significant decline in scientific interactions with the rest of the world. Most likely for these reasons, for a number of years, Baranov’s (1918) paper received no response from fisheries scientists in Russia or from abroad. Nonetheless, Baranov kept thinking about two important questions: (i) what is the “normal” state of an exploited fish population and the fishery and (ii) is it possible and rational to keep the population in pristine condition while continuing fishing? He addressed these questions again with his 1925 paper “On the question of the dynamics of fisheries” (Baranov, 1925a), in which he approached the questions from a very different angle. He explored the relationship between the productivity of the water body (the term “ecosystem” was not in use at the time) and its fish stock biomass and catch based on the concept of constant total biomass in the system. Baranov’s argument was as follows. Suppose we have a water basin that is in natural pristine condition and the productivity of this water body is A (in some unit of trophic production) and total weight of fish in it is B. Suppose A and B reflect the equilibrium condition. In this case, the biomass production in the basin is equal to the production of food needed to maintain the base stock of fish B1, remaining in the basin each year, plus the food produced to maintain the part of the fish stock that is taken each year as a catch b1: A=kB1 +rb1,(14) where k is the amount of food needed to maintain one unit of fish biomass and r is the amount of food needed for the production of one unit of new fish biomass. In this case the total annual biomass of fish stock B is B= B1+ rkb1=B1+ ab1.(15) If the exploitation rate U is known based on some independent analysis, for example, catch curve, we can estimate the base fish stock biomass B1 using relationship between exploitation, catch, and total biomass: U= b1B1+b1.(16) When the population was observed at two equilibrium states with different levels of exploitation rate and yield, a system of two equations can be written and solved for a and B: B=B1+ab1B=B2+ab2.(17) Baranov noted that such opportunity was presented by the WWI, which resulted in a “great fishing experiment”. His use of term “great experiment” with respect to WWI effect on fishing was similar to the term offered by Henry Maurice, English delegate and ICES president in 1920–1938 (Rozwadowski, 2002). Following the restoration of fishing in the North Sea after WWI, the Plaice committee of ICES reviewed the fishery statistics and concluded that the effects of fishing could be reversed by war and the effects of war could be reversed by fishing (Smith, 1994). As Henry Maurice put it together, “the war had been an experiment, the Great Fishing Experiment” (Smith,1994, p. 162). Whether Baranov came with this definition independently is not known, he did not provide any reference to the origin of the term, but it was obvious that he saw a great opportunity for the application of his theories to get better understanding of interactions between the fish and the fishery. Baranov presented two examples of his theory application in his paper: the plaice fishery in the North Sea and the significant anadromous Caspian roach (Rutilus rutilus caspicus) fishery in the northern Caspian Sea. Although Baranov did not describe the plaice data source, just noted that these are English data that included catches, effort (vessel days), and catch per day, these were most likely data from Borley et al. (1923). Information on pre-war and post-war landings and exploitation rates allowed Baranov to estimate pristine biomass B and coefficient a in (17). Using estimated parameters, Baranov plotted the relationship between yield and instantaneous fishing mortality rate to show that yield increases with the increase in fishing mortality and reaches asymptotic values in equilibrium conditions (Figure 7). Baranov made the following conclusion: “As we can see, our conclusions are very different from the current dominant concept where the pristine stock of fish is an untouchable capital and the fishery can only take a percent off this capital in the form of growth production. Our theory says that pristine stock and the fishery are incompatible and the exploitable stock is variable in size and dependent on fishing intensity. The more the fishery takes, the smaller is the standing stock, the less the fishery takes, the larger is the standing stock, getting closer to the pristine status as the fishing gets close to zero. That is the nature of things” (Baranov, 1925a). Figure 7. Open in new tabDownload slide Caspian roach yield in weight as a function of F based on Baranov’s 1925 biomass production method. Figure 7. Open in new tabDownload slide Caspian roach yield in weight as a function of F based on Baranov’s 1925 biomass production method. Baranov developed estimates of standing stock for plaice in the North Sea before and after WWI and analysed the transition from near pristine condition (right after WWI) to intensively exploited stock because of fishery recovery. According to English catch statistics, catch per day declined to the pre-war level during the next 5 years from 1919 to 1923 (Borley et al., 1923). At the time, many ICES member scientists believed that this decline was a sign of overfishing so that the stock requires protection measures and the Plaice Committee recommended closing southern nursery grounds to help the stock (Smith, 1994; ,Rozwadowski, 2002) . Following this discussion, professor N.M. Knipovich, former Russian representative to ICES, one of the ICES founders, was asking: “What do we need to do to avoid the sad history of place fishery in the North Sea?” He believed that measures should be taken to protect and support the pristine stock to avoid irrational overfishing (Knipovich, 1925a). Baranov was opposed to restrictions and argued that “the idea that fishery restrictions will lead to catches much higher than during the pre-war period is a dangerous illusion”. He noted that: "WWI presented an opportunity for the greatest experiment “that is equivalent to the passing of Venus across the sun, which happens once in centuries, and, while fisheries will be going through a recovery period, stocks will be transitioning to a new equilibrium state. We should be grabbing this opportunity to monitor these transitions by collecting fishery statistics in order to gain precious information, otherwise our fishing theory will remain just a theoretical exercise, while practical measures will be taken in the darkness”. While concluding the paper, Baranov made a small remark that will cause him a lot of trouble later: “We are not paying much attention here to providing sufficient recruitment to the stock, we hope to devote a separate article to this issue at a later time”. Unlike his 1918 paper, which went unnoticed, this publication received a substantial criticism from many prominent biologists in the Soviet Union and sparked a furious debate between Baranov and his opponents that lasted for several decades. His first strong critic was professor Knipovich. As noted before, Knipovich was the first Russian delegate to ICES, one of the leading biologists, hydrobiologist, and hydrologist in Russia and Soviet Union. He was mostly known for his explorations of fishery resources of White and Barents Seas in 1898–1902. He was also one of the organizers of Russian Polar expedition (1900–1902) and studies of Azov and Black Seas. Knipovich was a member of the Academy of Science and his opinion had a substantial authority. Knipovich (1925b) wrote: “As far as I know, nobody had responded to Baranov’s publication. Meanwhile, this silence of fishery biologists can be considered as an agreement with the author’s opinion. Therefore, I am forced to criticize this paper, because I find the author’s ideas totally unfounded and misleading … I want to note that the approach to the derivation of principal formulae is absolutely unacceptable to me as a biologist. The number of organisms of certain species inhabiting a water body is defined, as is well known to every biologist, by extremely complex group of biological, physical and geographic factors and their effects, and interactions constantly vary. We see only dynamic equilibrium in nature as the summary effect of constantly changing multiple factors. Extracting only one factor (which is not constant) and accounting only for its sole effect (where even this is not done correctly), we can arrive to various conclusions, but least likely that we will arrive to a right one”. Knipovich confirmed that he is an unconditional believer in the concept of natural stock, which can be considered as the capital, from which only profits can be can be taken by the fishery. He maintained that the concept of untouchable natural stock is indeed a dominant one “among people that are serious about natural resources and their rational exploitation. If we cut more forest, take more game or cattle than the natural growth, this will lead to a decline. Same applies to rationally organized fishery, does not matter what formulae we invent, they will not change anything. …One needs to protect spawning grounds, allow enough spawners to reach spawning grounds, in other words, provide measures of reasonable self-regulation that professor Baranov does not like. But Baranov does not believe even in importance of providing sufficient recruitment”! Responding to the comment regarding complexity of the environment and the cumulative effect of various factors on fish populations, Baranov (1925b) replied: “What should we do? Lower our head before the creator’s wisdom, complexity of nature and lack of power in scientific method? Complex problems occur not just in biology and they often are solved with the method that is unacceptable to my opponent”. Baranov further defended his approach: “A real event is a combination of so many relations, developments, synthesis of so many factors that we can only approach our understanding of the subject by studying separately it’s relationships to the extent it is possible by isolating them”. On the criticism for using formulae, he responded: “we need clarity and methodical analysis of the question, initial conditions should be clearly stated, and they should be logically developed towards the final conclusion. …Even an attempt of the use of mathematical method is very useful, because it leads the scientist to a clear formulation of the question”. Baranov concluded: “My views that are radically different from the ‘dominating ones’, were clearly described in my earlier 1918 paper. But they were not challenged, nor were they accepted, probably because they were not formulated in the form of declarations. Even now my opponent objects to my conclusions, not the theory itself”. Many other biologists followed Knipovich’s lead in criticism of Baranov’s theory and his conclusions, including Monastyrsky, Averintsev, Moiseev, Dementyeva, and Nikolsky. Baranov fought back, responding to his opponents (Baranov, 1925b, 1926, 1927,1928,1956,1957, 1965). He summarized these objections nicely in his speech at the conference of Soviet Union fisheries industry in 1951 (Baranov, 1951): “For 25 year ichthyologists have been criticizing my old publications where I analyzed the effect of fishing on the structure of fish populations. There are five objections against my theory. The theory has no grounds because it talks about the influence of a fishery on fish abundance and its structure, while such influence does not exist. The theory is one sided because it ignores the role of natural factors The methodology is incorrect because it was developed based on abstract ideas The theory is methodologically incorrect because it uses mathematics The theory is incorrect because it arrives at conclusions that are unacceptable to critics. Baranov proceeded with the summary of his counter arguments on each issue. In his arguments with the biologists, Baranov quoted famous scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers on the role of abstraction, use of mathematics and evolution of thought. In this speech. he frequently quoted Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the founders of the socialist ideology, but he used their work in the context of dialectical materialism, a philosophy of science and nature developed by Marx and Engels. Although his argumentation was appropriate from scientific point of view, one could see there an attempt to enforce his position with the authority of the “fathers” of the ideology that dominated the social life in the Soviet Union. This was most likely a reflection of the state of the society at that period, when another wave of the orchestrated search for the “enemies of people” covered the country at all levels of the society, including physicians, scientists, and engineers, which followed by the court trials and prosecutions. This was a period of public condemnation and destruction of the whole branches of science, such as genetics and cybernetics branding them as wrong and “bourgeois” science, while many scientists defending their scientific position were oppressed. Hence, Baranov’s quotes of Marxist classics were likely to serve a double function, possibly as a tool for survival. In summarizing his counter arguments to his opponents on the effect of fishing, Baranov noted that his opponents believed that fishing does not affect natural fish stocks if the management rules and regulations are followed and the fish have access to the feeding and spawning grounds. In addition, famous ichthyologist, Professor G. Nikolsky stated that the type of population dynamics is defined by stock age structure, longevity, and other biological characteristics. In response, Baranov argued: “This theory predicted that when man interferes with the stock through fishing, he changes those laws of population. And we know what these changes are. The number of large fish goes down, the number of small goes up. The whole history of fishing points at this effect. Nikolsky admits that fishing does not affect the stock abundance until certain level of fishing. Why? Because compensatory mechanisms compensate the losses. Fishery removes millions of adults, compensatory mechanisms generate millions of the young. So the law of population is changing and not only qualitatively, but quantitatively as well. Ichthyologists do see the effect of the fishery because, when they start their studies, they believe that they work with the natural stock, while it has been changed already due to fishing”. When discussing the role of environmental factors, prominent ichthyologist Monastyrsky (1949) wrote: “Baranov is contrasting the mechanistic effect of the fishery on the stock to the effect of the environmental factors”. Baranov responded: “First of all, my opponent fails to see that a gillnet set in water is actually an element of the environment and that fishing is one of the factors of the environment. While I am focused on effects of the fishing and ignore the role of the environment, my critics are focused on the role of environment and ignore the effect of fishing. Can one develop a theory exploring the effect of one factor, while ignoring the effect of the others? Not only is it possible, it is necessary”. To strengthen his argument, Baranov cited Engels “In order to understand separate phenomena, we need to separate them from the system network and consider them in isolation”. Baranov emphasized the importance of distinguishing two things: investigation of separate phenomenon, where we need to account for the effect of all factors, and investigation of the role of a specific factor, where we have to eliminate the effect of all other factors. It is necessary, he said “to either observe natural processes where they are least obscured by other factors or to conduct an experiment”. “What practical meaning can a theory have when it considers only one factor and ignores all others?”—asks Baranov and provides an answer: “We have to apply it in the cases when the phenomenon is most evident and other factors are absent. Of course, one sided theory will not provide a full analysis of the phenomenon occurring under the effect of several factors. We need to account for all factors in such case, but we need to have a theory of the mechanism for each factor. It is absolutely reasonable to build a theory that is focused on the effect of one factor, which is most important to us and the one that we can control”. When objecting to the use of abstract ideas, professor Monastyrsky (1949) argued: “When one reviews Baranov’s theory, it can be seen that it is based on the assumptions about isolated populations, the homogenous distribution of fish, an abstract basin and abstract population structure. It is impossible to imagine how one can develop an abstract of fish recruitment (!)”. Baranov responded back with the quote from “Philosophical notebooks” by Lenin (1961): “Practice is blind without a theory…Abstraction is underestimated by a large number of scientists. Thought emerging from concrete to abstract is not going away from the truth, it is getting closer to it. Abstracts of matter, laws of nature, abstracts of cost, all scientific serious abstracts reflect nature deeper, fuller more correct. From real life observation to abstract thinking and from it to practice—this is a dialectic path of learning the truth, learning objective reality”. On the use of mathematics Baranov commented: “Flourishing physics, engineering and use of mathematics is a sign of recent times. Dialectics entered other sciences via mathematics. Dialectics entered mathematics via Descart’s variable almost two centuries before Hegel restored dialectics in philosophy. Since then mathematics turned into a powerful tool of dialectic exploration of the world. Dooming themselves into use of only four rules of arithmetic, ichthyologists are making themselves alike to the ostrich hiding its head in the sand”. Baranov was convinced that the investigation of population dynamics of fisheries resources is not possible without mathematical methods, the most powerful tool of learning the dialectics of quantitative changes. On the question of the theory being incorrect because its conclusions are unacceptable to critics, Baranov answered with the quote from Engels: “Regardless what scientific study you are conducting, you should not be confused by the conclusions this study may lead to”. Recognition Baranov’s “formal theory” was clearly a revolutionary step at the dawn of the 20th century towards developing a tool to understand the dynamics of fish stock and their interaction with fisheries. With respect to the originality, he was certainly the first to introduce the mathematical model of fishery dynamics that created a foundation of quantitative fisheries. Professor Terrence Quinn in his “Ruminations on the development and future of population dynamics models in fisheries” (Quinn, 2008) called Baranov “The Grandfather of fisheries population dynamics”. The path to recognition was however very difficult and rather different in his own country and abroad. As was demonstrated earlier in this paper, Baranov’s ideas did not take root in his own country for several decades. Baranov’s work had to be recognized in the West before it finally got accepted in his own country. The 1918 paper has been translated to English at least three times. The first one was by the British Foreign Office in 1938, on the initiative of E.S. Russell, the then Director of the Lowestoft Laboratory. This is the translation known to Ray Beverton and Sidney Holt and it was passed on to the California State Fisheries Laboratory in 1943 (Beverton, 2002). Another translation was made by W. Ricker in 1945 and, lastly, the Israel Program for Scientific Translations published a volume of Baranov’s works in 1977 (Baranov, 1977). Finally, the American Fisheries Society published Baranov's 1918 work in a compilation of classic fisheries science papers (Sass et al., 2014) . Through early translations Baranov’s paper was made known to and appreciated by the former Directors of the Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory E. Russell and Michael Graham, which is evidenced by the congratulatory letter to Baranov from M. Graham (Figure 8). Apparently, Russel approached Hjort in 1939 in a letter, informing him of Baranov’s (1918) paper and proposing to publish it together with other papers of the ICES Scientific Meeting in that year (Russel, 1939). It is not known what Hjort’s response was, but Baranov’s paper was not published. The last section of Baranov’s (1918) paper was devoted to periodic fluctuations in fish stocks where he described conclusions of Hjort (1914) famous study and called them very important, but at the same time expressed some doubts about the validity of some conclusions. Whether Baranov’s critical comments affected Hjort’s decision, we will probably never know. Inspired by the work of Baranov and others, Graham hired young scientists Hulme, Beverton and Holt to work on further development of quantitative fisheries methods, which resulted in the fundamental work by Beverton and Holt “On the Dynamics of the Exploited Fish Populations” (Beverton and Holt, 1957), the “bible” of fisheries biologists in the second half of the 20th century. Anyone familiar with Baranov’s (1918) paper could see it clearly in in the heart of Beverton and Holt Dynamic Pool Model, which integrated growth, mortality, and recruitment and was immensely more extensive and detailed in investigations of the effects of minimum size, fishing mortality, growth, feeding, spatial variation, and movement on population abundance and yield. Beverton and Holt clearly acknowledged Baranov in their 1957 seminal publication and indicated that the primary difference between the two was in the description of fish growth. Beverton and Holt, who used the Von Bertalanffy (1938) growth function, pointed at deficiency of Baranov’s approach, which assumed a linear relationship between the age of the fish and their size, thus ignoring the asymptotic approximation of maximum size at older age (Beverton and Holt, 1957; Holt, 2014). It is not clear though whether the work of Beverton and Holt was built on Baranov’s paper or was a completely independent, parallel development. During his lecture tour of the US fisheries laboratories in 1994, Ray Beverton said: “Moving into the post First World War period that starts with one of the great contributions by Fiodor Ilyich Baranov published in 1918. We did not see it in the Western world until the latter part of the 1930s. I did not see it until 1947. In the post-War period Baranov was not known. His paper did not have any effect at all because it disappeared in the limbo with the First World War and the Russian Revolution. I have never heard or seen him and I have never heard of anyone else who met him”. Figure 8. Open in new tabDownload slide Letter from the Director of Lowestoft Laboratory Michael Graham to F. Baranov. Figure 8. Open in new tabDownload slide Letter from the Director of Lowestoft Laboratory Michael Graham to F. Baranov. It could be assumed that Beverton refers here to a specific period of 1918–1938 when saying that Baranov’s paper had no effect. Beverton continued on describing their 1947 paper with H.R. Hulme and S.J. Holt (Hulme et al., 1947), which served as a starting point of their analysis: “Graham said to Hulme, ‘Come down to the Lab and talk to my two young boys’. Ando so he did, and out this came a paper we wrote, which is really what Baranov put in an age specific form instead of a length specific one and still with a linear growth rate, and that was in Nature” (Beverton, 2002). Although only Beverton and Holt could answer directly to the question of Baranov’s influence, it would be plausible that once they read Baranov’s paper, it did affect their theoretical thinking and stimulated them in moving in a certain direction, whether they consciously acknowledged this or not. Neither Beverton nor Holt was aware at the time of Baranov’s polemics with ichthyologists in the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is particularly fascinating to read the following statement in their work: “We make no apology for the fact that much of what is to follow is mathematical in nature. It is now generally accepted by fishery naturalists, and in fact by most workers dealing with population problems, that mathematics is an indispensable tool in their studies” (Beverton and Holt, 1957). According to Quinn (2008), Baranov’s work was eventually recognized and appreciated by Ricker, Beverton, Holt, Thompson, Russell, Graham, Silliman, F.N. Clark, and C. Clark, among many others. William Ricker, one of the most influential fisheries scientists of the 20th century, viewed Baranov as a mentor, even though he never met him (Quinn, 2008). Ricker’s interest in Baranov’s work had lead him to a visit to the Soviet Union in 1969, where he learned more of the Baranov’s papers as well as many other Russian ichthyologists, such as Derzhavin, Chugunov, and Monastyrsky. Unfortunately this happened after Baranov’s death in 1965. The history of Baranov’s debate with his peers is truly fascinating and instructive. When we look back at their debate from the height of our current knowledge, we can see some truth in the arguments on both sides. Baranov was absolutely convinced that fishing was a principal driving factor that governs the abundance and structure of fish stocks and that his theory could be used to measure this effect and manage a fishery based on this knowledge. He truly believed that all or nearly all observations on decline in fish abundance, reduction in age and size structure, that were traditionally interpreted as signs of overfishing were actually signs of transition from one steady state to another, according to the applied fishing pressure. He did not see this as a sign of overfishing and, in general, did not believe that overfishing may occur [here I differ with the opinion of Quinn (2008), who stated that Baranov proved that overfishing may occur], because in his opinion, economic overfishing will occur sooner and the fishing pressure will be cut back. He repeated this position clearly and loudly multiple times in various papers in his arguments with the biologists. His certainty was mostly rooted in the fact that in the first half of 20th century fisheries in his own country and many others were undeveloped and stocks were exploited at light or moderate level. At the time of Baranov’s writing even his most vocal opponent Professor Knipovich believed that “it would be laughable to take measures to protect anchovy in Black or Azov seas or cod in the Barents sea” (Knipovich, 1925b). Explosion of industrial fisheries through the second half of the 20th century lead to recruitment failure and dramatic decline of abundance of hundreds of populations all over the world and proved Baranov being wrong on our inability to overfish stocks (Pauly et al., 1998; Myers and Worm, 2003). His primary focus on fishery and stock interaction may possibly explain why he did not pay too much attention to the question of recruitment. He acknowledged on several occasions that the recruitment role should be investigated separately but never managed to do so. This was seen by biologists as one of the weakest points of his theory, so much so, that it made the theory unacceptable to them as a whole. Obsessed with the complexity of the ecosystems, his opponents believed that isolating the effect of fishing on fish stocks with a mathematical model was an unacceptable oversimplification. “It is impossible to imagine how one can develop an abstract of fish recruitment” wrote Professor Monastyrsky (1949). In a few short years, it was brilliantly demonstrated by Ricker (1954) that such and abstract can be developed and the mathematical model describing recruitment processes can be built and used to understand its mechanisms. Baranov, on the other hand, with his clear logic and emphatic love for mathematics could not accept that the extreme biological complexity of the environment rendered it incapable of comprehension. In his arguments with the biologists, Baranov referred multiple times to the quotations from famous philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians. He strongly believed that the philosophy of dialectic materialism is a tool to build and test scientific theories and that it was “better to have an incomplete theory than no theory at all. A published theory becomes immediately subject to the scrutiny of a thousand eyes and heads. If the erroneousness of a theory is not detected immediately, it does not stand up to the great criterion of practice and cannot survive long. Lack of any theory at all makes it possible to stray forever”. While reading the arguments on both sides, one could see that Baranov and his critics in principle could have agreed on many of their basic postulates and try to focus on reasons for disagreement to resolve them. However, the defensiveness of both sides and the intensity of the debate precluded their ability to hear objective criticism. This unfortunate limbo resulted in stagnation of fisheries theory in Soviet Union for several decades and it took time for a new generation of scientists to catch up with the rest of the world. Baranov’s role as a pioneer, the “Grandfather” of quantitative fish population dynamics is now undeniable. However, his full potential in terms of affecting the development of fisheries science during his time was certainly not realized. Not only his theory provided theoretical foundation for understanding of interaction between the fishery and fish populations, it was ready for practical use, as demonstrated by several examples in two papers with the focus on North Sea plaice. By the time of his 1918 paper publication, ICES scientists spent ∼10 years attempting to address the question of North Sea plaice overfishing and how to manage it. ICES Overfishing Committee (later renamed as Plaice Committee) would have benefitted directly from Baranov’s work, which provided estimates of standing stock, pristine biomass, natural and fishing mortality rates and offered a method for immediate analysis of stock response to different fishing mortality levels, and the means of estimating optimal fishery yield. There were other mathematical theories emerging in biology and ecology during the same period, such as logistic model by Pearl and Reed (1920), Lotka–Volterra’s models of predator–prey population cycles and competition (Lotka 1920, 1925; Volterra, 1926), but Baranov’s work was most directly suited for immediate practical application in fisheries science. Apparently Baranov was not alone in a row of scientists whose work was ignored or lost to the mainstream. German marine biologist Adolf Buckman who worked on differential equation models for the relationship between fishery yield, fishing intensity, and growth rate was also largely ignored because of a bad feeling about Germans after WWI and a rivalry with Michael Graham (Quinn, 2008). One could only imagine what would have happened and how far fisheries science would have gone if Baranov’s paper was. What would have happened if Baranov was appointed to the ICES Overfishing Committee, to which he would have been a perfect fit and could have contributed immensely, given how much he was able to do while being just an enthusiastic scientist observing ICES activities from the outside? What would have happened it he met Johan Hjort and others, and if his theory was combined with Hjort’s view on the role of year class success and with Derzhavin’s (1922) virtual population analysis? Would this have resulted in a much earlier development of age based assessment methods such as Virtual Population Aanalysis (VPA) and many other models that we can only guess about? Unfortunately, history does not accept modals of lost opportunities. Following Hjort’s idea on conditions required for a strong year class success, a successful theory must also be “spawned” at the right place and time. Sadly, Baranov’s theory emerged in a wrong place and the wrong time. His work was not embraced immediately, he had to carry his fight through his whole life in an environment that was very hostile to his ideas. According to Fridman (1987), after Baranov made his famous speech at the All Union Conference of Fishery Industry in 1951 and left the audience, the crowd started shouting: “Condemn him! This must be his last speech”! When he returned home that night, he said to his wife: “Can you imagine, six hundred ichthyologists against me alone? But I was totally calm” (Fridman, 1987). In the following days directors of four fisheries research institutes sent letters to the main newspaper condemning Baranov’s position, his views were denounced by the Scientific Councils of the All Union Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO), his own Rybvtuz and the Fisheries Ministry. His lectures on fishing theory were banned. These were difficult times, when the country went through series of public repressions orchestrated by oppressive Stalin’s regime. It required a lot of courage for the individual to stay by the principals, it could cost the person his own life. It was reported that Baranov was in danger, but his former student, Professor Andreev, who was party official, saved him. But Baranov did not give up; he continued his work. He wrote papers and argued with biologists about the appropriate use of mathematics in fish populations modelling (Baranov, 1963, 1965). Baranov died before his last paper “On application of mathematics in ichthyology” was published. Fyodor Ilyich Baranov was a brilliant thinker, true gentleman, and honest and brave scientist, whom we could certainly use as an example of scientific integrity. He had a very successful career as an engineer of fishing gears. He authored the first in the world textbook on fishing techniques, he headed a Department of Industrial Fishing in his institute for 40 years and raised a number of students who later became big names in fishing industry. However, his work on population dynamics had to wait for a long time before it was fully recognized. The use of mathematical models in fisheries finally took hold in his own country by the 1970s, mostly because of the rapid development of applied mathematical methods in fisheries in other countries and their spread through international fisheries management organizations. Baranov’s approach to population modelling has taken deep roots and quantitative stock assessments have become standard in fisheries management around the world. Stock assessment models rapidly increased in complexity afforded by the increase in computing power and advancement in statistical techniques, attempting to integrate all available information within single modelling framework (Quinn, 2008). However, the mistrust to modelling so prevalent among Baranov’s critics appears to be present today as well and growing. Critics of quantitative methods point at excessive obsession with quantitative methods, which ignore realities, and ecological science (Symes, 1996; Ben-Yami, 2015). Too many fisheries scientists are believed to have become “keyboard ecologists”, who often lack wisdom to interpret data (Rose, 1997). It was suggested that stock assessments have become too complicated (Cotter et al., 2004). The use of abstractions that Baranov argued to be so necessary is challenged again: “In our haste to free ourselves from descriptive naturalism we have embraced clever but naive abstractions of reality, and ultimately, ignorance” (Rose, 1997). Fisheries scientists are accused of confusing model outputs with reality (Walters and Maguire, 1996). Reality is believed to be more uncertain than what assessment scientists portray. The trend in pursuing ever-increasingly complex and uncertain models that few understand is considered as unproductive, and use of simpler and more direct forms of monitoring, assessment and management is suggested. Interestingly, the early argument for the models oversimplifying the underlying processes is replaced these days with the one that models have become too complex with the outputs difficult to interpret and often at odds with reality. In general, these are valid complaints reflecting failed expectations when managing fisheries based on advanced mathematical and statistical models. The question is whether this is a failure of modelling in the whole as a principal research management tool or our failure in the proper use of the tool. Here Baranov’s words from the history of his debate with biologists nearly a century ago on the importance of assumptions and model testing appears again to be useful and relevant. In his response to Knipovich’s criticism (Baranov, 1925b) he wrote: “Theory presented in mathematical form leads to a certain form of the criticism of the theory. First step of the criticism is revealing formal errors in theory development. This path leads to the theory improvement, not destruction. If logical development of the theory does not have errors, its conclusions are obligatory in relation to specific cases where the assumptions laid as a basis of the theory are true. Therefore, the question boils down to separating the cases where assumptions are met and the other cases. Because the theory is being developed to study relationships that cannot be observed directly, the fact of meeting the assumptions can be confirmed only through comparing the theory results with the facts. Even if mathematical theory was applicable to a small number of cases, it would still be extremely useful, allowing at least in this cases to move from talks to calculations”. This still seems to be a relevant advice—test the model with the data, when failed, re-evaluate your assumptions and the theory (model structure), modify, reapply, collect additional data to improve, and test again. Repeat the cycle until new accumulated knowledge allows us to move to a new level of understanding of the processes we study. Baranov as a philosopher would probably say—“this is a law of dialectical materialism,—transition of accumulated quantity into new quality, this is a path to continuous evolution of our knowledge”. Thank you, Professor. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my colleagues T. Bulgakova and V. Babayan for assisting with the access to the original papers. L. Barker and M. Tarnowsky helped with editing the original manuscript. Thomas Miller, Desmond Kahn, Alexander Bobyrev, and two unknown reviewers provided valuable comments that helped to improve the manuscript. All details about Baranov’s personal life were possible only because of a wonderful book by his former student, Professor A.L. Fridman (unfortunately available only in Russian). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. References Baranov F. I. 1914 . On overfishing . Fishing Industry News (Vestnik Rybopromyshlennosti) , 15 – 16 . In Russian. Also in Baranov [1977], Vol. III. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1918 . On the question of the biological basis of fisheries . Bulletin of the Department of Fish Farming and Fishery Research (Nauchnyi Issledovatelskii Ikhtiologicheskii Institut Isvestia) , 1 : 81 – 128 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. , 1925 a. On the question of the dynamics of the fishing industry . Bulletin of the Fishing Industry , 8: 18–24 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1925 b. On objections of Professor N.M. Knipovich on my paper “On the question of the dynamics of the fishing industry” . Bulletin of the Fishing Industry ,12: 37>–44. In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1926 . Open letter to Professor N.M. Knipovich . Bulletin of the Fishing Industry , 6 : 11 – 14 . In Russian OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1927 . On the objections of S Averintsev to my papers . Bulletin of Fishing Industry , 8 : 24 – 28 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1928 . Still about the same . Bulletin of Fishing Industry , 5 : 37 – 39 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1951 . Address to the All Union Conference on Problems of Fishing Industry. In Proceedings of the All Union Conference on Problems of Fishing Industry. Also in Baranov F.I. 1977, III. In Russian. Baranov F. I. 1956 . About papers by Professor P.A. Moiseev and Dr. T.F. Dementyeva . Fisheries (Rybnoye Khozyaystvo) , 1 : 19 – 21 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1957 . Against descriptive approach in ichthyology . Problems of Philosophy (Voprosy phylosophii) , 6 : 141 – 146 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1965 . On application of mathematics in ichthyology . Fisheries (Rybnoe Khozyaistvo) , 8–9: 48–51. In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baranov F. I. 1977 . Selected Works on Fishing Gear. Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem (Translator: E. Vilim, Editor: P. Greenberg, 3 vols). Ben-Yami M. 2015 . Challenging scientific inertia in fisheries management. In Progressive Engineering Practices in Marine Resource Management , pp. 244 – 265 . Ed. by I. Zlateva, V. Raykov and N. Nikolov. Hershey PA USA. Engeneering Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global). Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bertalanffy L. 1938 . A quantitative theory of organic growth (inquiries on growth laws II) . Human Biology , 10 : 181 – 213 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Beverton R. J. H. , Holt S. J. 1957 . On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Fishery Investigations Series II, 19. HMSO, London. 533 pp. (3rd corrected reprint, 2004, Blackburn Press, New Jersey). Beverton R. J. H. 2002 . Reflections on 100 Years of Fisheries Research. In The Raymond J. H. Beverton Lectures at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Three Lectures on Fisheries Science given May 2–3, 1994, pp. 107 – 159 . Ed. by Anderson E. D.. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-54. Sliver Spring, MD. Borley J. O. , Russel E. S., Graham M., Wallace W., Thursby-Pelam D. E. 1923 . The Plaice Fishery and the War: Preliminary Report on Investigations. Fisheries Investigations (Series 2), 5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (UK), London. Cotter A. J. R. , Burt L., Paxton C. G. M., Fernandez C., Buckland S. T., Pan J. X. 2004 . Are stock assessment methods too complicated? Fish and Fisheries , 5 : 235 – 254 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Derzhavin A. N. 1922 . Caspian – Kura stocks of sevruga. Biological essay . Proceedings of Baku Ichtyologycal Laboratory , 1 : 13 – 33 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Fridman A. L. 1987 . Recognition . Kaliningrad publishing . Kaliningrad, USSR. 303 pp. In Russian. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Graham M. 1943 . The Fish Gate . London: Faber & Faber Limited . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hjort J. 1914 . Fluctuations in the Great Fisheries of Northern Europe Viewed in the Light of Biological Research. Rapports et ProcésVerbaux des Réunions, Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 20, 228. Holt S. J. 2014 . The graceful sigmoid: Johan Hjort's contribution to the theory of rational fishing . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 71 : 2008 – 2011 . 10.1093/icesjms/fsu152 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crossref Hulme H. R. , Beverton R. J. H., Holt S. J. 1947 . Population studies in fisheries biology . Nature , 159 : 714 – 715 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Johansen A. C. 1906 . Ueber die scholennfischerei im Kattegatund die Mittel, sie zu lieben. Cpnseil Perm. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Proces Verb, Vol V: 45 – 136 . Knipovich N. M. 1925 a. On the question of the effect of war on fish stocks . Bulletin of Fishing Industry , 6 : 53 – 39 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Knipovich N. M. 1925 b. Few words on the paper by Professor Baranov “On the question of the dynamics of the fishing industry” . Bulletin of Fishing Industry , 11 : 23 – 28 . In Russian. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Lenin V. I. 1961 . Collected Works of VI Lenin: Philosophical Notebooks . Lawrence & Wishart, London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Lotka A. J. 1920 . Analytical note on certain rhythmic relations in organic systems . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 6 : 410 – 415 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Lotka A. J. 1925 . Elements of Physical Biology . Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Monastyrsky G. N. 1949 . On Professor Baranov’s theory on optimal fish harvest Progress of Modern Biology, XXVIII, 6: 422 . Myers, R. A., and Worm, B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423: 280–283. Pauly D. , Christensen V., Dalsgaard J., Froese R., Torres F. 1998 . Fishing down marine food webs . Science , 279 : 860 – 863 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Pearl R. , Reed L. J. 1920 . On the rate of growth of the population of the United States since 1790 and its mathematical representation . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 6 : 275 – 288 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Quinn T. J. 2008 . Ruminations on the development and future of population dynamics models in fisheries . Natural Resource Modeling , 16 : 341 – 392 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ricker W. E. 1954 . Stock and recruitment . Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada , 11 : 559 – 623 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ricker W. E. 1975 . Computation and Interpretation of Biological Statistics of Fish Populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin, 191, Ottawa. Rose G. A. 1997 . Points of view: the trouble with fisheries science! Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries , 7 : 365 – 370 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Rozwadowski, H. M. 2002. The sea knows no boundaries. A century of marine science under ICES. ICES and University of Washington Press, Seattle. Russel E. 1939 . National Library, Norway Ms.4, 2911, Johan Hjort collection, XIXA, letter from E. Russell to Johan Hjort, 24.5.1939. Symes D. 1996 . Fishing in troubled waters. In Fisheries Management in Crisis , pp. 3 – 16 . Ed. by Crean K., Symes D.. Fishing News Books , Oxford . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Sass G. G. , Allen M. S., Arlinghaus R., Kitchell J. F., Lorenzen K., Schindler D. E., Walters C. J. (Ed.) 2014 . Foundations of Fisheries Science . American Fisheries Society , Bethesda, MD . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Smith, T. D. 1994. Scaling fisheries: the science of measuring the effects of fishing, 1855–1955. Cambridge University Press, New York. Walters C. , Maguire J.-J. 1996 . Lessons for stock assessment from the northern cod collapse . Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries , 6 : 125 – 138 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Volterra V. 1926 . Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi . Memoria della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei , 2 : 31 – 113 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat © International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected] This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)