Trends in the abundance of marine fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) established a target in 2002 to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Using a newly constructed global database for 207 populations (108 species), we examine whether the 2010 target has been met for marine fishes, while accounting for population biomass relative to maximum sustainable yield, BMSY. Although rate of decline has eased for 59% of populations declining before 1992 (a pattern consistent with a literal interpretation of the target), the percentage of populations below BMSY has remained unchanged and the rate of decline has increased among several top predators, many of which are below 0.5BMSY. Combining population trends, a global multispecies index indicates that marine fishes declined 38% between 1970 and 2007. The index has been below BMSY since the mid-1980s and stable since the early 1990s. With the exception of High Seas pelagic fishes and demersal species in the Northeast Pacific and Australia – New Zealand, the multispecies indices are currently below BMSY in many regions. We conclude that the 2010 CBD target represents a weak standard for recovering marine fish biodiversity and that meaningful progress will require population-specific recovery targets and associated time lines for achieving those targets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".