I think we've all heard the ideas about letting the big ones go so they can get bigger, or whatever they do. I'm guessing that the idea was based on a common sense logic without any real substantiation.

This study is very interesting. We'll have to get a copy of the whole study somehow so we can see if a lot of questions get cleared up regarding the study.

A couple of questions come to mind:

1) Do you think that by leaving the largest fish (in a control setting), the existing largest fish will control the overall population by cannibalism, thus reducing the overall population, thus leaving more food amongst fewer fish; eventually leading to the existing larger fish getting larger?

2) Do the largest fish tend to breed with other larger fish?

I'm guessing the full study will answer a lot of questions.

Excerpt from Robert Crais' "The Monkey's Raincoat:"
"She took another microscopic bite of her sandwich, then pushed it away. Maybe she absorbed nutrients from her surroundings."