Fishing restrictions and remoteness deliver conservation outcomes for Indonesia's coral reef fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coral reef fisheries depend on reef fish biomass to support ecosystem functioning and sustainable fisheries. Here, we evaluated coral reefs across 4,000 km of the Indonesian archipelago to reveal a large gradient of biomass, from <100 kg/ha to >17,000 kg/ha. Trophic pyramids characterized by planktivore dominance emerged at high biomass, suggesting the importance of pelagic pathways for reef productivity. Total biomass and the biomass of most trophic groups were higher within gear restricted and no‐take management, but the greatest biomass was found on unmanaged remote reefs. Within marine protected areas (MPAs), 41.6% and 43.6% of gear restricted and no‐take zones, respectively, met a global biomass target of 500 kg/ha, compared with 71.8% of remote sites. To improve conservation outcomes for Indonesia's biodiverse and economically important coral reef fisheries, our results suggest to: (1) strengthen management within Indonesia's existing MPAs and (2) precautionarily manage remote reefs with high biomass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".