The demise of Darwin's fishes: evidence of fishing down and illegal shark finning in the Galápagos Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fauna of the Galápagos Island chain is characterized by high biodiversity and endemism. Thus, the conservation of its terrestrial and marine wildlife, including the sustainable management of local fisheries, is of paramount importance. Although the commercial exploitation of fish in the Galápagos did not intensify until the mid‐1900s, issues of overexploitation and mismanagement are already of serious concern. However, to date, research on Galápagos fisheries has been largely species or island specific, and no long‐term cumulative catch statistics exist. In this study, total landings associated with the industrial and artisanal fisheries of the Galápagos Islands were compiled and analysed in an effort to assess accurately the amount of seafood that has been extracted from this region over the last six decades. The total catch for all sectors from 1950–2010 was 797 000 t, of which industrially caught tuna made up 80%. The results also show a high degree of fishing down within the in‐shore ecosystem catch, whereby planktivorous mullets have replaced high trophic level groupers within the past three decades. This shift has coincided with the spatial expansion of the Galápagos fishing fleet to areas further off‐shore, where predatory species are not yet depleted. In addition to legally caught and exported seafood, Galápagos waters are also prone to illegal fishing. Of primary concern are shark finning practices that have escalated in intensity since the 1980s. Despite attempts at mitigation, this ecologically destructive and wasteful practice continues to occur in the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 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".