Effect of trawling on juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) habitat selection and life history parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study documents ontogenetic habitat shifts of red snapper ( Lutjanus campechanus ) and highlights possible impacts of shrimp trawling on age-0 fish life history parameters on the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) continental shelf. Red snapper were collected quarterly during 2004 and 2005 over sand, low-relief shell rubble, high-relief shell rubble, and natural high-relief reef habitats within a de facto nontrawl area and in similar habitats on the open shelf where commercial shrimp trawling occurred. Age-0 red snapper were most dense over sand and low-relief shell rubble habitats and moved to higher-relief shell rubble and natural reef habitats by age-1. Habitat-specific daily growth rates of age-0 fish were highest over sand (range 0.65–1.03 mm·day–1). Densities of age-0 red snapper were highest over trawled sand, but higher over nontrawled shell rubble by 6 months of age (age-0.5+). Red snapper collected over sand and low-relief shell rubble areas exposed to trawling had truncated size distributions, higher mortality estimates, and lower production potential (the latter evaluated with G–Z and P–B ratios) compared with fish over nontrawled areas of similar habitat. Results suggest that juvenile red snapper residing over nontrawled areas may have a higher probability of survival than fish in areas exposed to commercial shrimp trawling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".