Sea-cage aquaculture impacts market and berried lobster (Homarus americanus) catches
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 598:85-97 (2018) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12623 Sea-cage aquaculture impacts market and berried lobster (Homarus americanus) catches I. Milewski1,*, R. H. Loucks2, B. Fisher3, R. E. Smith2, J. S. P. McCain1, H. K. Lotze1 1Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada 2RH Loucks Oceanology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia B3M 1L3, Canada 3Port Mouton, Nova Scotia B0T 1T0, Canada *Corresponding author: milewski@nbnet.nb.ca ABSTRACT: Sea-cage finfish aquaculture frequently spatially overlaps and competes with traditional fisheries and ecologically important habitats in the coastal zone. Yet only few empirical studies exist on the effects of sea-cage aquaculture on commercially important fish and shellfish species, due to the lack of data. We present results from a unique collaboration between scientists and lobster fishers in Port Mouton Bay, Atlantic Canada, providing 11 yr of market (market-sized) lobster catches and berried (ovigerous) lobster counts in 5 spatially resolved areas adjacent to a sea-cage finfish farm. The time series covered 2 stocked (feed) and 2 non-stocked (fallow) periods, allowing us to test for the effects of feed versus fallow periods. Our results indicate that average market lobster catch per unit effort (CPUE) was significantly reduced by 42% and berried lobster counts by 56% in feed compared to fallow periods. Moreover, both market and berried lobster CPUE tended to be lower in fishing region 2, which included the fish farm, and higher in region 5, furthest away from the farm. Bottom temperature measurements in one region suggest that differences in CPUE between feed and fallow periods were not driven by temperature, and that berried lobsters may be more sensitive to both aquaculture and temperature than market lobster. We discuss possible mechanisms of how finfish farms as well as other abiotic and biotic factors such as habitat quality and temperature could affect lobster catch. Our results provide critical information for the management of multiple human uses in the coastal zone and the conservation of shellfish habitats that sustain traditional fisheries. KEY WORDS: Finfish farming · Environmental impacts · Traditional fishery · Lobster habitat · Coastal zone · Atlantic Canada Full text in pdf format Supplementary materialCorrigendum PreviousNextCite this article as: Milewski I, Loucks RH, Fisher B, Smith RE, McCain JSP, Lotze HK (2018) Sea-cage aquaculture impacts market and berried lobster (Homarus americanus) catches. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 598:85-97. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12623 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 598. Online publication date: June 28, 2018 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2018 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".