A conservation trade‐off? Interspecific differences in seahorse responses to experimental changes in fishing effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A 2‐year experimental seining programme and underwater visual censuses were undertaken to quantify the direct effects of active demersal fishing on the population structure and relative abundance of two sympatric seahorse species of conservation concern: the European long‐snouted seahorse, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier 1829 and the short‐snouted seahorse, Hippocampus hippocampus L. The influence of habitat preference on population‐level responses to changes in habitat structure following a reduction in fishing effort was also investigated. It was predicted that the benthic habitat would be more structurally complex after fishing ceased and that seahorse densities would increase in response to reduced fishing mortality. Furthermore, it was predicted that the magnitude of the increase in density would be greater for H. guttulatus than for H. hippocampus, because the former species prefers complex vegetated habitats while the latter species uses sparsely vegetated habitats. As predicted, the amount of habitat cover increased significantly when seining ceased, primarily through increases in the abundance of drifting macroalgae and unattached invertebrates. Despite similarities in life histories, the two seahorse species responded differently in terms of magnitude and direction to reduced fishing effort: the abundance of H. guttulatus increased significantly while H. hippocampus decreased in abundance. Results suggest that active demersal fishing may influence the magnitude and direction of the responses of benthic marine fishes to exploitation through its impacts on habitat structure. An increase in habitat cover appeared to favour higher densities of H. guttulatus when seining effort was reduced. By contrast, repeated seining, which maintained less complex habitats, appeared to favour greater abundances of H. hippocampus. Given differences in habitat preference among benthic marine fishes subject to incidental capture in fisheries, simultaneous attempts to manage populations of sympatric species may require complementary strategies that support the persistence of diverse habitat types. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".