Assessing the sublethal impacts of anthropogenic stressors on fish: An energy‐budget approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fish are increasingly exposed to anthropogenic stressors from human developments and activities such as agriculture, urbanization, pollution and fishing. Lethal impacts of these stressors have been studied but the potential sublethal impacts, such as behavioural changes or reduced growth and reproduction, have often been overlooked. Unlike mortality, sublethal impacts are broad and difficult to quantify experimentally. As a result, sublethal impacts are often ignored in regulatory frameworks and management decisions. Building on established fish bioenergetic models, we present a general method for using the population consequences of disturbance framework to investigate how stressors influence ecologically relevant life processes of fish. We partition impact into the initial energetic cost of attempts to escape from the stressor, followed by the energetic impacts of any injury or behavioural change, and their consequent effects on life processes. As a case study, we assess the sublethal effects of catch and release angling for the European sea bass ( Dicentrachus labrax , Moronidae ), a popular target species for recreational fishers. The energy budget model described is not intended to replace existing experimental approaches but does provide a simple way to account for sublethal impacts in assessment of the impact of recreational fisheries and aid development of robust management approaches. There is potential to apply our energy budget approach to investigate a broad range of stressors and cumulative impacts for many fish species while also using individual‐based models to estimate population‐level impacts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".