MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Life history of an unusual marine fish: survival, growth and movement patterns of<i>Hippocampus guttulatus</i>Cuvier 1829

2006· article· en· W2000067018 on OpenAlexaff
J. M. R. Curtis, Amanda C. J. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBenthic zonePopulationFisheryEcologyPhilopatryHabitatZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The life history of the long‐snouted seahorseHippocampus guttulatuswas characterized using mark‐recapture data collected within a focal study site and catch data from 53 additional sites in the Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, southern Portugal. Population structure in benthic habitats was characterized by high local densities (0·3–1·5 m−2), equal sex ratios and few juveniles <70 mm. AdultH. guttulatusmaintained small (19·9 ± 12·4 m2), strongly overlapping home ranges during multiple reproductive seasons. Recruited (benthic) juveniles exhibited significantly lower site fidelity than adults. A Ford‐Walford plot of standard length (LS) at timetagainstLSmeasured during the previous year from tagged juveniles and adults led to estimates of the von Bertalanffy parametersK = 0·571 andL∞ = 197·6 mm. The growth rate of planktonic juveniles (inferred from previous studies), was greater than predicted by the von Bertalanffy model, providing evidence of an ontogenetic shift in growth trajectory. The instantaneous rate of natural mortality,M, ranged from 1·13 to 1·22 year−1(annual survival rate = 29·4–32·2%). Sexes did not differ in movement, growth or survival patterns. On average,H. guttulatusmeasured 12·2 ± 0·8 mm at birth. Planktonic juveniles recruited to vegetated habitat at 96·0 ± 8·0 mm (0·25 years), had mature brood pouches (males only) at 109·4 mm (0·49 years), began maintaining home ranges and reproducing at 125–129 mm (0·85–0·94 years), and lived for 4·3–5·5 years. Early age at maturity, rapid growth rates, and short generation times suggested thatH. guttulatusmay recover rapidly when direct (e.g. exploitation) and indirect (e.g. by‐catch and habitat damage) effects of disturbance cease, but may be vulnerable to extended periods of poor recruitment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations132
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207