Linking habitat and population dynamics to inform conservation benchmarks for data-limited salmon stocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Management of data-limited populations is a key challenge to the sustainability of fisheries around the world. For example, sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ) spawn and rear in many remote coastal watersheds of British Columbia (BC), Canada, making population assessment a challenge. Estimating conservation and management targets for these populations is particularly relevant given their importance to First Nations and commercial fisheries. Most sockeye salmon have obligate lake-rearing as juveniles, and total abundance is typically limited by production in rearing lakes. Although methods have been developed to estimate population capacity based on nursery lake photosynthetic rate (PR) and lake area or volume, they have not yet been widely incorporated into stock-recruit analyses. We tested the value of combining lake-based capacity estimates with traditional stock-recruit based approaches to assess population status using a hierarchical-Bayesian stock-recruit model for 70 populations across coastal BC. This analysis revealed regional variation in sockeye population productivity (Ricker α), with coastal stocks exhibiting lower mean productivity than those in interior watersheds. Using moderately-informative PR estimates of capacity as priors reduced model uncertainty, with a more than five-fold reduction in credible interval width for estimates of conservation benchmarks (e.g. S MAX - spawner abundance at carrying capacity). We estimated that almost half of these remote sockeye stocks are below one commonly applied conservation benchmarks (S MSY ), despite substantial reductions in fishing pressure in recent decades. Thus, habitat-based capacity estimates can dramatically reduce scientific uncertainty in model estimates of management targets that underpin sustainable sockeye fisheries. More generally, our analysis reveals opportunities to integrate spatial analyses of habitat characteristics with population models to inform conservation and management of exploited species where population data are limited.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".