Irruptive prey dynamics following the groundfish collapse in the Northwest Atlantic: an illusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frank, K. T., Leggett, W. C., Petrie, B., Fisher, J. A. D., Shackell, N. L., and Taggart, C. T. 2013. Pelagic fish outbreak in the Northwest Atlantic - reality or illusion? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: . The collapse of Northwest Atlantic groundfish in the early 1990s yielded a “natural experiment” within which to explore responses of ecosystems to a major perturbation. The “Pelagic Outburst” hypothesis was developed to explain an up to 900% increase in the abundance of small-bodied forage fishes and macroinvertebrates following this collapse and a subsequent trophic cascade extending across four trophic levels. Recently, this theory has been challenged and an alternative “Suprabenthic Habitat Occupation” (SHO) hypothesis has been advanced; it proposes the prey outburst associated with the forage fish component was an illusion created by changes in the vertical distribution of small pelagic fishes after the cod collapse in favour of a more bottom-oriented distribution that increased their vulnerability to bottom trawls. We evaluated the SHO hypothesis as it applied to the relationship between changes in the biomass of cod and the vertical distribution of herring and sand lance, the major small pelagic species of the Scotian Shelf ecosystem off eastern Nova Scotia. Contrary to predictions of the SHO hypothesis our initial conclusion that a pelagic outburst occurred in that ecosystem was confirmed and we found no evidence of a predator effect on vertical distributions of these species. We also explored the acoustic survey design and execution that generated the data that form the cornerstone of the SHO hypothesis, and the coherence between the behaviour depicted in these data and catch rates in the surface-oriented purse-seine fishery for herring operating at the time of these surveys. In combination, the results of our re-analysis of the population dynamics and behaviour of herring on the eastern Scotian Shelf, lead us to conclude that the SHO hypothesis, at least as it relates to the post-cod collapse dynamics of the affected Northwest Atlantic ecosystems, is not supported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".