MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496466817

Size, structure, movement, and survival of American lobster, Homarus americanus, populations in areas with and without commercial harvesting

2000· dissertation· en· W1496466817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sherrylynn Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterFisheryBiologyPopulationPopulation densityMarine reserveBayNature reserveEcologyFishingCrustaceanGeographyDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the potential effectiveness of no-take reserves as a fisheries conservation tool for American lobsters (Homarus americanus), I quantified the size, structure, movement, and survival of lobsters inside and outside of two small no-take reserves (Round Island and Duck Islands) in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland during 1997-1999. These no-take reserves were established by harvesters as part of a co-management plan for the local fishery and supported approximately 1.5% of the local lobster population. Although this study only concerned the first three years following reserve establishment, there were clear differences in lobster population parameters inside and outside of the no-take reserves. At the Round Island reserve, population density was high and stable over time, and female and male size increased, as did the proportion of ovigerous females. However, at the Duck Islands reserve, population density increased dramatically between 1997 and 1998, and male size increased over time, but there was no detectable change in female size or in the proportion of ovigerous females. Lobster density, female and male size, and the proportion of ovigerous females were greater within the Round Island reserve compared to an adjacent harvested area. At the Duck Islands, females and males were larger in size within the reserve but I found no difference in lobster density or the proportion of females that were ovigerous between the reserve and an adjacent harvested area. Differences in the response of some lobster population components to small no-take reserves can be explained by patterns of lobster movement and survival. Because the frequency of lobster emigration from the reserves was low (only 8.7% of tagged lobsters recaptured were in an area with a harvesting status different from that of where they were tagged) and harvesting pressure outside of the reserves was intense (annual harvesting mortality amounted up to 87.2% for lobsters eligible for commercial harvest), my results indicated that no-take reserves can offer increased survival to lobsters and may provide direct benefits to the local fishery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207