Freshwater turtle bycatch research supports science‐based fisheries management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although it is sometimes difficult for researchers to ensure that their work is used by resource managers to make informed decisions, an example where this knowledge–action gap has been breached is in research published inAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems(AQC) – among other journals – that has assisted fisheries managers in identifying strategies for reducing freshwater turtle bycatch in commercial hoop net fisheries in Ontario, Canada. Research published in AQC has provided evidence towards a simple and effective method for preventing turtle bycatch mortality in hoop nets, which could be adopted by the fishers. Other research published in AQC evaluated the effect of bycatch mortality on the probability of persistence of turtle populations with population viability analyses, and outlined the need to minimize bycatch mortality to prevent local extirpation. Nine other papers have been published on freshwater turtle bycatch in Ontario, furthering our knowledge on this issue including seasonality and temperature effects on catches, other net modifications, post‐release effects and assisted recovery, and the perspectives of fishers. The research results were presented to local resource managers with further discussions involving industry and stakeholders to minimize turtle bycatch mortality. Over several years, researchers have provided information to resource managers; however, when an incident of high turtle mortality caught the public eye, the research was readily available and changes in regulations were quick to occur. Reasonably good communication among researchers, resource managers, industry, stakeholders, and the broader public allowed the rapid implementation of regulations to mitigate freshwater turtle bycatch mortality and bridged the knowledge–action gap between researchers and resource managers. Both articles published in AQC had practical conservation impacts and were influential in providing local resource managers with feasible solutions, and the impetus to change regulations. These impacts extended to other jurisdictions and their monitoring programmes, where methods to reduce turtle bycatch mortality were also implemented.
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 | 0.105 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".