Spatial variation in exploited metapopulations obscures risk of collapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unanticipated declines among exploited species have commonly occurred despite harvests that appeared sustainable prior to collapse. This is particularly true in the oceans where spatial scales of management are often mismatched with spatially complex metapopulations. We explore causes, consequences, and potential solutions for spatial mismatches in harvested metapopulations in three ways. First, we generate novel theory illustrating when and how harvesting metapopulations increases spatial variability and in turn masks local-scale volatility. Second, we illustrate why spatial variability in harvested metapopulations leads to negative consequences using an empirical example of a Pacific herring metapopulation. Finally, we construct a numerical management strategy evaluation model to identify and highlight potential solutions for mismatches in spatial scale and spatial variability. Our results highlight that spatial complexity can promote stability at large scales, however, ignoring spatial complexity produces cryptic and negative consequences for people and animals that interact with resources at small scales. Harvesting metapopulations magnifies spatial variability, which creates discrepancies between regional and local trends while increasing risk of local population collapses. Such effects asymmetrically impact locally constrained fishers and predators, which are more exposed to risks of localized collapses. Importantly, we show that dynamically optimizing harvest can minimize local risk without sacrificing yield. Thus, multiple nested scales of management may be necessary to avoid cryptic collapses in metapopulations and the ensuing ecological, social, and economic consequences.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".