Worldwide status of burbot and conservation measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although burbot ( Lota lota Gadidae) are widespread and abundant throughout much of their natural range, there are many populations that have been extirpated, endangered or are in serious decline. Due in part to the species’ lack of popularity as a game and commercial fish, few regions consider burbot in management plans. We review the worldwide population status of burbot and synthesize reasons why some burbot populations are endangered or declining, some burbot populations have recovered and some burbot populations do not recover despite management measures. Burbot have been extirpated in much of Western Europe and the United Kingdom and are threatened or endangered in much of North America and Eurasia. Pollution and habitat change, particularly the effects of dams, appear to be the main causes for declines in riverine burbot populations. Pollution and the adverse effects of invasive species appear to be the main reasons for declines in lacustrine populations. Warmer water temperatures, due either to discharge from dams or climate change, have been noted in declining burbot populations at the southern extent of their range. Currently, fishing pressure does not appear to be limiting burbot populations world‐wide. We suggest mitigation measures for burbot population recovery, particularly those impacted by dams and invasive species.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".