Predator–prey interactions in the face of management regulations: changes in Mediterranean small pelagic species are not due to increased tuna predation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the abundance of young Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) tripled in the northwestern Mediterranean following effective management measures. We investigated whether its predation on sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) could explain their concurrent size and biomass decline, which caused a fishery crisis. Combining the observed diet composition of bluefin tuna, their modelled daily energy requirements, their population size, and the abundance of prey species in the area, we calculated the proportion of the prey populations that were consumed by bluefin tuna annually over 2011–2013. To assess whether tuna could alter the size structure of the three small pelagic fish populations (anchovy, sardine, and sprat (Sprattus sprattus)), the size distributions of the consumed prey species were compared with those of the wild populations. We estimated that the annual consumption of small pelagic fish by bluefin tuna is less than 2% of the abundance of these populations. Furthermore, size selectivity patterns were not observed. We thus concluded that tuna predation is unlikely to be the main cause of major changes in the small pelagic fish populations from this area.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".