Connectivity of lobster (<i>Homarus americanus</i>) populations in the coastal Gulf of Maine: part II. Coupled biophysical dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We used a coupled biophysical model to investigate larval transport and connectivity patterns in the Gulf of Maine lobster ( Homarus americanus ) population. Biological ‘particles’ were released at over 21 000 locations every 10 days over a 4‐month hatching period, and were followed from hatching through late postlarval stage. In addition to circulation and dispersion, model calculations included spatial patterns of egg production, temporal patterns of hatching, temperature‐dependent development, vertical distribution and mortality. We ran the model for three larval production seasons using the same hatching patterns and individual‐based modeling parameters but different flow patterns in the coastal current system. Model results gave distribution and abundance patterns of competent postlarvae that closely resembled observed, alongshore patterns of lobster settlement density. We evaluated the relative contribution of all source regions to the total number of competent postlarvae in a series of medium‐size zones along the coastal shelf, many of which are used in lobster management. Connectivity depended on many factors, including patterns of egg production and transport, and the location and size of the receiving zones. Self recruitment ranged from a few percent to >90% of competent postlarvae. Although it was common for postlarvae to come from many, often distant, sources, most of the competent postlarvae in a zone originated within one to two zones in the prevailing ‘up‐stream’ direction, forming shorter connections along the coast than the energetic currents might otherwise suggest. Inshore migrations during summer hatching may contribute to these shorter patterns of connectivity. Transport in the prevailing ‘upstream’ direction was also indicated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".