Pelagic fishes and the cod recruitment dilemma in the Northwest Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like most other stocks of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Northwest Atlantic, cod in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence declined to low abundance in the early 1990s. Recovery has been slow in contrast with the rapid recovery from similar levels of abundance in the mid-1970s. This difference reflects remarkably high prerecruit survival of cod in the earlier period of low abundance rather than unusually poor survival in the 1990s. The period of high prerecruit survival of cod coincided with the collapse of herring (Clupea harengus) and mackerel (Scomber scombrus) stocks resulting from overfishing. These pelagic fishes are potential predators or competitors of the early life history stages of cod. We report a strong negative relationship between the biomass of these pelagic fishes and recruitment rate of southern Gulf cod. This is consistent with the recent suggestion that the success of large predatory fishes may depend on "cultivation" effects in which the adults crop down forage fishes that are predators or competitors of their young. Our results also point to the possibility of a triangular food web involving cod, seals, and pelagic fishes, making it difficult to predict the effect of a proposed cull of seals on the recovery of cod.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".