Oscillating reproductive strategies of herring in the western Atlantic in response to changing environmental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Melvin, G. D., Stephenson, R. L., and Power, M. J. 2009. Oscillating reproductive strategies of herring in the western Atlantic in response to changing environmental conditions. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1784–1792. Herring are broadly distributed in the western Atlantic, but reproductive activity is restricted to the central portion, from Cape Cod to northern Newfoundland. Spawning extends from early spring to late autumn. Two spawning types are recognized: spring spawners and autumn spawners. At the southern extreme, spawning occurs almost exclusively in autumn, whereas in the north, spring spawners prevail. Mid-range, both strategies are common, with spawning occurring throughout the entire season. We postulate that the temporal intra-stock dominance of spawning type is an adaptive reproductive strategy to changing environmental conditions. A conceptual model is presented to describe how reproductive success can oscillate between spawning strategies. In most years, environmental conditions appear to favour one type or the other, although strong year classes can co-occur when conditions are right. The recent change in environmental conditions, characterized by a general warming trend, favours autumn spawners and is consistent with our model. At the distributional extremes, stocks are restricted to a single spawning strategy, and broad-scale environmental changes can introduce large interannual variability and limit the reproductive and recovery potential of a stock. The dependence of a stock on a single spawning season may result in longer times to recover to target levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".