A New Approach to Mixed Stock Analysis that Informs on the Management and Conservation of Hawksbill in the Wider Caribbean: the Case of the Legal Fishery in Jardines del Rey, Cuba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have used mixed stock analysis (MSA) to infer the relevance of rookeries in sea turtle aggregations for conservation/management purposes. However, their approaches and assumptions are not always homogeneous or realistic. We assayed new MSAs using the annual haplotype frequencies of aggregations and rookeries of Eretmochelys imbricata in the Wider Caribbean (WC), and the population size was selected according to the sampler year most relevant on the maturity of the aggregation. The MSA results obtained using this approach were compared with MSAs executed with grouped haplotype frequency data as has been the most common practice in the literature. The relationship of Jardines del Rey (JR) legal fishing aggregation (Cuba) to other aggregations and rookeries in the region was analyzed with data collected in 2004 to 2006 and during the 1990s. The JR non-adult fishing ground presented high genetic diversity and Mexican rookery was identified as the primary contributor using haplotypes at the 384 bp length and each MSA approach that was used, congruent with the demographic growth reported for this rookery. Using haplotypes at the 740 bp length, the primary contributor to non-adult turtles at JR differed according to the MSA approach used, alternating between Mona Island and the Mexican rookery. Jardines del Rey is a route usually taken by non-adult hawksbills of diverse origin, reflecting the need to strengthen the sampling and conservation efforts on the WC rookeries with rare or orphan haplotypes, and to warn about the impact of the fishery occurring in similar areas. Likewise, adult turtles from JR were highly diverse and from multiple origins, with this area serving as a migratory corridor for first breeders (females) to many WC breeding grounds. Caution should be employed in any MSA approach due to the influence effect of sequence length, selection of the rookery size and haplotype frequencies, as well as other assumptions that may affect the estimated contributions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".