MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175647504 · doi:10.1139/f2012-060

Linking fishing mortality reference points to life history traits: an empirical study

2012· article· en· W2175647504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shijie Zhou, Shaowu Yin, James T. Thorson, Anthony D. M. Smith, Michael Fuller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum sustainable yieldFishingStatisticsProxy (statistics)MathematicsFisheryDemographyEconometricsBiologyFisheries managementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rule of thumb that fishing mortality to achieve maximum sustainable yield (F MSY ) equals natural mortality (M) has been both criticised and supported by theoretical arguments. However, the relationship has been rarely investigated using empirical data. We carried out a meta-analysis on 245 fish species worldwide and linked three types of reference points (F BRP : F MSY , F proxy , and F 0.5r ) to M and other life history parameters (LHP). We used Bayesian hierarchical errors-in-variables models to investigate the relationships and included the effect of taxonomic class and order. We compared various models and found that natural mortality is the most important LHP affecting F BRP . Other covariates, such as von Bertalanffy growth coefficient, asymptotic length, maximum age, and habitat types, add little to the relationship, partially because of correlation and large measurement and process errors. The best model results in F MSY = 0.87M (standard deviation (SD) = 0.05) for teleosts and F MSY = 0.41M (SD = 0.09) for chondrichthyans. F proxy based on per-recruit analysis is about 15% smaller than F MSY . Results could be used to estimate F BRP from LHP in data-poor situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations151
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207