MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003725016 · doi:10.1080/02755947.2014.902408

Managing a Marine Stock Portfolio: Stock Identification, Structure, and Management of 25 Fishery Species along the Atlantic Coast of the United States

2014· article· en· W2003725016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard S. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew York Sea Grant, State University of New YorkAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
KeywordsFisheryBiologyClupeaFish migrationAlosaAtlantic herringHerring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this review, stock identification methods used, resulting stock numbers and boundaries, and assessment and management context were explored for all 25 species managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). This included invertebrates and vertebrates distributed between Maine and Florida, with a few species ranging across all these states and some ranging into the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian Maritimes. The effects of larval dispersal or mixing of adults in the marine environment were evident. Marine and catadromous spawners were recognized and treated as a unit stock (e.g., northern shrimp Pandalus borealis, American Eel Anguilla rostrata, Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus, Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix, Tautog Tautoga onitis), a metapopulation (American lobster Homarus americanus, Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus), or two stocks, north and south of Cape Hatteras, a major biogeographic boundary, (Black Sea Bass Centropristis striata, Scup Stenotomus chrysops, Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus, Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus). Estuarine and anadromous spawners were structured and managed at a finer spatial scale (horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus, Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus, American Shad Alosa sapidissima and the river herrings Blueback Herring A. aestivalis and Alewife A. pseudoharengus, and Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus). A broad suite of stock identification methods have been applied to ASMFC species and reviewed here in five categories: life history traits, other phenotypic traits, genetic traits, natural marks, and applied marks. An interdisciplinary mix of methods has been achieved for a few species (Striped Bass Morone saxatilis, Winter Flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus), but only a few or no stock identification methods have been applied to others (Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias, Hickory Shad A. mediocris, Spot Leiostomus xanthurus, Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus). Clinal phenotypic variation has contributed to several long-standing debates about stock structure; some of these have been recently reevaluated as a unit stock (Atlantic Croaker Micropogonias undulatus, Weakfish Cynoscion regalis), and others are still debated. For some ASMFC species, other priorities (e.g., bycatch) dominate the uncertainty of the assessment or management process. Otherwise, stock identification remains a research priority for most of these species. Continued research of this subject should consider (1) research priorities tabulated by ASMFC review panels, (2) strategic use of interdisciplinary stock identification methods, (3) use of experiments or reaction norms to separate phenotypes from genotypes, (4) genetic surveys at a seascape scale, (5) demonstration of contingent (nongenetic) structure and its implications for management, and (6) simulation modeling. Obstacles to adopting finer-scale structure into assessments or management of ASMFC fisheries include: (1) multiple stock units are apparent but boundaries are not clear, (2) monitoring requirements for smaller areas or for mixed-stock catches are not cost effective, or (3) mixing rates within a metapopulation or across biogeographic boundaries are poorly described. Received May 8, 2013; accepted March 3, 2014

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207