Local overfishing patterns have regional effects on health of coral, and economic transitions can promote its recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Overfishing has the potential to severely disrupt coral reef ecosystems worldwide, while harvesting at more sustainable levels instead can boost fish yield without damaging reefs. The dispersal abilities of reef species mean that coral reefs form highly connected environments, and the viability of reef fish populations depends on spatially explicit processes such as the spillover effect and unauthorized harvesting inside marine protected areas. However, much of the literature on coral conservation and management has only examined overfishing on a local scale, without considering how different spatial patterns of fishing levels can affect reef health both locally and regionally. Here, we simulate a coupled human-environment model to determine how coral and herbivorous reef fish respond to overfishing across multiple spatial scales. We find that coral and reef fish react in opposite ways to habitat fragmentation driven by overfishing, and that a potential spillover effect from marine protected areas into overfished patches helps coral populations far less than it does reef fish. We also show that ongoing economic transitions from fishing to tourism have the potential to revive fish and coral populations over a relatively short timescale, and that large-scale reef recovery is possible even if these transitions only occur locally. Our results show the importance of considering spatial dynamics in marine conservation efforts, and demonstrate the ability of economic factors to cause regime shifts in human-environment systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".