Fish populations subject to heavy exploitation are expected to evolve over time smaller average body sizes. We introduce Stackelberg evolutionary game theory to show how fisheries management should be adjusted to mitigate the potential negative effects of such evolutionary changes. We present the game of a fisheries manager versus a fish population, where the former adjusts the harvesting rate and the net size to maximize profit, while the latter responds by evolving the size at maturation to maximize the fitness. We analyze three strategies: i) ecologically enlightened (leading to a Nash equilibrium in game-theoretic terms); ii) evolutionarily enlightened (leading to a Stackelberg equilibrium) and iii) domestication (leading to team optimum) and the corresponding outcomes for both the fisheries manager and the fish. Domestication results in the largest size for the fish and the highest profit for the manager. With the Nash approach the manager tends to adopt a high harvesting rate and a small net size that eventually leads to smaller fish. With the Stackelberg approach the manager selects a bigger net size and scales back the harvesting rate, which lead to a bigger fish size and a higher profit. Overall, our results encourage managers to take the fish evolutionary dynamics into account. Moreover, we advocate for the use of Stackelberg evolutionary game theory as a tool for providing insights into the eco-evolutionary consequences of exploiting evolving resources.

Rapid evolution is ubiquitous in nature. We briefly review some of this quite broadly, particularly in the context of response to anthropogenic disturbances. Nowhere is this more evident, replicated and accessible to study than in cancer. Curiously cancer has been late - relative to fisheries, antibiotic resistance, pest management and evolution in human dominated landscapes - in recognizing the need for evolutionarily informed management strategies. The speed of evolution matters. Here, we employ game-theoretic modeling to compare time to progression with continuous maximum tolerable dose to that of adaptive therapy where treatment is discontinued when the population of cancer cells gets below half of its initial size and re-administered when the cancer cells recover, forming cycles with and without treatment. We show that the success of adaptive therapy relative to continuous maximum tolerable dose therapy is much higher if the population of cancer cells is defined by two cell types (sensitive vs. resistant in a polymorphic population). Additionally, the relative increase in time to progression increases with the speed of evolution. These results hold with and without a cost of resistance in cancer cells. On the other hand, treatment-induced resistance can be modeled as a quantitative trait in a monomorphic population of cancer cells. In that case, when evolution is rapid, there is no advantage to adaptive therapy. Initial responses to therapy are blunted by the cancer cells evolving too quickly. Our study emphasizes how cancer provides a unique system for studying rapid evolutionary changes within tumor ecosystems in response to human interventions; and allows us to contrast and compare this system to other human managed or dominated systems in nature.