The paradox of the pelagics: why bluefin tuna can go hungry in a sea of plenty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 527:181-192 (2015) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11260 The paradox of the pelagics: why bluefin tuna can go hungry in a sea of plenty Walter J. Golet1,2,*,**, Nicholas R. Record3,**, Sigrid Lehuta2, Molly Lutcavage4, Benjamin Galuardi4, Andrew B. Cooper5, Andrew J. Pershing1,2,** 1School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, College Road, Orono, ME 04469, USA 2Gulf of Maine Research Institute, 350 Commercial Street, Portland, ME 04101, USA 3Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, ME 04544, USA 4Department of Environmental Conservation, Marine Fisheries Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst, PO Box 3188, Gloucester, MA 01931, USA 5School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, V5A 1S6, BC, Canada *Corresponding author: walter.golet@maine.edu**These authors contributed equally to this work ABSTRACT: Large marine predators such as tunas and sharks play an important role in structuring marine food webs. Their future populations depend on the environmental conditions they encounter across life history stages and the level of human exploitation. Standard predator-prey relationships suggest favorable conditions (high prey abundance) should result in successful foraging and reproductive output. Here, we demonstrate that these assumptions are not invariably valid across species, and that somatic condition of Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in the Gulf of Maine declined in the presence of high prey abundance. We show that the paradox of declining bluefin tuna condition during a period of high prey abundance is explained by a change in the size structure of their prey. Specifically, we identified strong correlations between bluefin tuna body condition, the relative abundance of large Atlantic herring Clupea harengus, and the energetic payoff resulting from consuming different sizes of herring. This correlation is consistent with optimal foraging theory, explaining why bluefin tuna condition suffers even when prey is abundant. Furthermore, optimal foraging principles explain a shift in traditional bluefin tuna foraging areas, toward regions with a higher proportion of large herring. Bluefin tuna appear sensitive to changes in the size spectrum of prey rather than prey abundance, impacting their distribution, reproduction and economic value. Fisheries managers will now face the challenge of how to manage for high abundance of small pelagic fish, which benefits benthic fishes and mammalian predators, and maintain a robust size structure beneficial for top predators with alternative foraging strategies. KEY WORDS: Bluefin tuna · Herring · Optimal foraging · Condition · Thunnus thynnus Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Golet WJ, Record NR, Lehuta S, Lutcavage M, Galuardi B, Cooper AB, Pershing AJ (2015) The paradox of the pelagics: why bluefin tuna can go hungry in a sea of plenty. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 527:181-192. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11260 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 527. Online publication date: May 07, 2015 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2015 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".