Effects of Customary Marine Closures on Fish Behavior, Spear‐Fishing Success, and Underwater Visual Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Customary management systems (i.e., management systems that limit the use of marine resources), such as rotational fisheries closures, can limit harvest of resources. Nevertheless, the explicit goals of customary management are often to influence fish behavior (in particular flight distance, i.e., distance at which an organism begins to flee an approaching threat), rather than fish abundance. We explored whether the flight distance of reef fishes targeted by local artisanal fishers differed between a customary closure and fished reefs. We also examined whether flight distance of these species affected fishing success and accuracy of underwater visual census (UVC) between customary closed areas and areas open to fishing. Several species demonstrated significant differences in flight distance between areas, indicating that fishing activity may increase flight distance. These relatively long flight distances mean that in fished areas most target species may stay out of the range of spear fishers. In addition, mean flight distances for all species both inside and outside the customary-closure area were substantially smaller than the observation distance of an observer conducting a belt-transect UVC (mean [SE]= 8.8 m [0.48]). For targeted species that showed little ability to evade spear fishers, customary closures may be a vital management technique. Our results show that customary closures can have a substantial, positive effect on resource availability and that conventional UVC techniques may be insensitive to changes in flight behavior of fishes associated with fishing. We argue that short, periodic openings of customary closures may allow the health of the fish community to be maintained and local fishers to effectively harvest fishes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".