The contribution of cephalopods to global marine fisheries: can we have our squid and eat them too?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cephalopods are a key component of marine food webs, providing sustenance for myriad marine species. Cephalopods are also of increasing economic importance as evidenced by the rapid rise in their global landings over recent decades. If fisheries continue on this trajectory, conflicts may transpire among cephalopod and finfish fisheries, particularly in ecosystems where cephalopods are highly valuable both directly as a landed commodity and indirectly as prey for other harvested species. We provide the first measure of the ecosystem services that cephalopods contribute to fisheries in 28 marine ecosystems, both as a commodity and an ecological support service. We also evaluate how current demands on cephalopods compare to mid‐20th century conditions. We find that cephalopod contributions to fisheries vary widely, but are substantial in many ecosystems. Commodity and supportive services provided by cephalopods contributed as much as 55% of fishery landings (tonnes) and 70% of landed values ($USD). The contribution of cephalopods as a commodity was generally greatest in the coastal ecosystems, whereas their contribution as a supportive service was highest in open ocean systems. Further, the commodity and supportive services provided by cephalopods to fisheries landings increased in most of the coastal ecosystems between the mid‐20th century (years 1960–70) and contemporary periods (years 1990–2004), indicating the rising demand for cephalopods. Current demands have no historical precedent and ecosystems in which cephalopods are highly exploited as a targeted resource and as an ecological support service should be further evaluated to prevent the unsustainable development of marine fisheries within them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".