REVIEW Development of conservation strategies to mitigate the bycatch of harbor porpoises in the Gulf of Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ESR Endangered Species Research Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsSpecials ESR 20:235-250 (2013) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00488 Theme Section: Techniques for reducing bycatch of marine mammals in gillnets REVIEWDevelopment of conservation strategies to mitigate the bycatch of harbor porpoises in the Gulf of Maine Andrew J. Read* Division of Marine Science and Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516, USA *Email: aread@duke.edu ABSTRACT: In this paper I review the development of conservation strategies to address the bycatch of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena in Gulf of Maine gillnet fisheries from 1982, when bycatches were first detected, until a Take Reduction Plan was implemented in 1999. After consideration of several mitigation options, the plan included a combination of time-area closures and the use of acoustic alarms. Implementation of these measures reduced the annual bycatch of porpoises from a high of 2900 in 1990 to 323 in 1999, the first year in which bycatches fell below the potential biological removal (PBR) level. The success of these measures can be attributed to several factors, including a clear conservation goal, the PBR level, mandated by the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. The importance of PBR is underscored by contrasting experiences in the USA, where the goal was achieved, and those in Canada, where no comparable goal existed and no conservation measures were implemented. The availability of detailed scientific information on bycatch levels and abundance was critical to persuading all stakeholders of the need to act. Successful negotiation within the Take Reduction Team was facilitated by a long prior history of informal collaboration and dialogue. Finally, the monitoring program provided important feedback on the efficacy of measures in reducing bycatch, effectively closing the loop on the management process. This case study is instructive in several regards with respect to the elements necessary to address bycatch issues involving small cetaceans and gillnet fisheries. KEY WORDS: Harbor porpoise · Bycatch · Gillnets · Gulf of Maine Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Read AJ (2013) Development of conservation strategies to mitigate the bycatch of harbor porpoises in the Gulf of Maine. Endang Species Res 20:235-250. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00488 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in ESR Vol. 20, No. 3. Online publication date: May 31, 2013 Print ISSN: 1863-5407; Online ISSN: 1613-4796 Copyright © 2013 Inter-Research.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".