Effects of habitat quality and fishing on Caribbean spotted spiny lobster populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Overfishing has had detrimental impacts on many marine populations. However, measurements of the effect of exploitation are often confounded by intersite differences in habitat quality. To assess the effects of fishing and habitat quality on spotted spiny lobster Panulirus guttatus , the target of a luxury fishery in the Caribbean, lobster populations were assessed on 12 reefs around Anguilla, British West Indies. Habitat quality was measured by the availability of foraging habitat. Fishing intensity was estimated through interviews with fishers. Spotted spiny lobster densities were significantly higher on reefs with good‐quality habitat than on poorer‐quality reefs. However, mean lobster size remained constant regardless of habitat quality. In contrast, lobsters were on average smaller in heavily fished than in unfished areas because of the removal of the largest size classes by fishers. Changes in densities as a result of fishing could not be detected, and there was no interaction between fishing pressure and habitat quality. The lack of an observable effect of fishing on lobster population densities may be because fishers more intensively target high‐quality habitats. Fishing has probably reduced lobster densities on high‐quality reefs to a greater extent than on low‐quality reefs, but the high productivity of good‐quality sites is still sustaining more intense fishing. Synthesis and applications . The importance of habitat quality in sustaining P. guttatus populations in the face of intense exploitation suggests that management efforts should be aimed at enhancing reef health. The latter may be achieved through the establishment of no‐take areas on good‐quality reefs. Such actions should, however, be expected to generate conflicts with stakeholders because these reefs are currently those most heavily exploited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".