Stock assessment of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and An assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On September 7, 2000 the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that it was reinitiating consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on pelagic fisheries for swordfish, sharks, tunas, and billfish. 1 Bycatch of a protected sea turtle species is considered atake under the Endangered Species Act (PL93-205). On June 30, 2000 NMFS completed a Biological Opinion on an amendment to the Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan that concluded that the continued operation of the pelagic longline fishery was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.2 Since that Biological Opinion was issued NMFS concluded that further analyses of observer data andadditional population modeling of loggerhead sea turtles was needed to determine more precisely the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on turtles. 3,4 Hence, the reinitiation of consultation.The documents that follow constitute the scientific review and synthesis of information pertaining to the narrowly defined reinitiation of consultation: the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles The document is in 3 parts, plus 5 appendices.Part I is a stock assessment of loggerhead sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. Part II is a stock assessment of leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. Part III is an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtlesof the Western North Atlantic.These documents were prepared by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center staff and academic colleagues at Duke University and Dalhousie University. Personnel involved from the SEFSC include Joanne Braun-McNeill, Lisa Csuzdi, Craig Brown, Jean Cramer, Sheryan Epperly, Steve Turner, Wendy Teas, Nancy Thompson, Wayne Witzell, Cynthia Yeung, and also Jeff Schmid under contract from the University or Miami. Our academic colleagues, Ransom Myers, Keith Bowen, and Leah Gerber from Dalhousie University and Larry Crowder and Melissa Snover from Duke University, also recipients of a Pew Charitable Trust Grant for aComprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide Pelagic Longline Industry, made significant contributions to the quantitative analyses and we are very grateful for their collaboration. We appreciate the reviews of the stock definition sections on loggerheads andleatherbacks by Brian Bowen, University of Florida, and Peter Dutton, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center, respectively, and the comments of the NMFS Center of Independent Experts reviewers Robert Mohn, Ian Poiner, and YouGan Wang on the entire document. We also wish to acknowledge all the unpublished data used herein which were contributed by many researchers, especially the coordinators and volunteers of the nesting beach surveys and the sea turtle stranding and salvage network and the contributors to the Cooperative Marine Turtle Tagging Program. (PDF contains 349 pages)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».