An evaluation of the collapse and recovery of the yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) stock on the Grand Bank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brodie, W. B., Walsh, S. J., and Maddock Parsons, D. 2010. An evaluation of the collapse and recovery of the yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) stock on the Grand Bank. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1887–1895. In 1994, the biomass of yellowtail flounder on the Grand Bank had declined to 20% of the biomass associated with the maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy) because of overfishing in the 1980s, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) declared a moratorium on fishing of this stock (and several others in the area). After 4 years of moratorium, the biomass had quadrupled, the fishery was reopened, and the biomass is now well above Bmsy. Based on advice developed within a precautionary approach framework, total allowable catches were set corresponding to a fishing mortality of ≤0.67 × Fmsy. When the fishery was reopened in 1998, several measures to reduce the fishing mortality and ensure continued recovery were introduced. We review and evaluate the science and the management strategies developed during the decline, collapse, and recovery, noting that yellowtail flounder is the only groundfish stock on the Grand Bank that has fully recovered after its collapse. Key management measures included the elimination of fishing by non-NAFO vessels, protection of strong year classes, and keeping the fishing mortality below 0.67 × Fmsy. Although overfishing is viewed as causing the stock decline, productivity was strongly affected by climatic conditions during the collapse and recovery. Changes in water temperature coincided with major changes in the catch and fishing mortality.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".