Compensatory density dependence in fish populations: importance, controversy, understanding and prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Density‐dependent processes such as growth, survival, reproduction and movement are compensatory if their rates change in response to variation in population density (or numbers) such that they result in a slowed population growth rate at high densities and promote a numerical increase of the population at low densities. Compensatory density dependence is important to fisheries management because it operates to offset the losses of individuals. While the concept of compensation is straightforward, it remains one of the most controversial issues in population dynamics. The difficulties arise when going from general concepts to specific populations. Compensation is usually quantified using some combination of spawner–recruit analysis, long‐term field monitoring or manipulative studies, and computer modelling. Problems arise because there are limitations to each of these approaches, and these limitations generally originate from the high uncertainty associated with field measurements. We offer a hierarchical approach to predicting and understanding compensation that ranges from the very general, using basic life‐history theory, to the highly site‐specific, using detailed population models. We analyse a spawner–recruit database to test the predictions about compensation and compensatory reserve that derive from a three‐endpoint life‐history framework designed for fish. We then summarise field examples of density dependence in specific processes. Selected long‐term field monitoring studies, manipulative studies and computer modelling examples are then highlighted that illustrate how density‐dependent processes led to compensatory responses at the population level. Some theoretical and empirical advances that offer hope for progress in the future on the compensation issue are discussed. We advocate an approach to compensation that involves process‐level understanding of the underlying mechanisms, life‐history theory, careful analysis of field data, and matrix and individual‐based modelling. There will always be debate if the quantification of compensation does not include some degree of understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".