Multiple drivers of invasive lionfish culling efficiency in marine protected areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Designing effective local management for invasive species poses a major challenge for conservation, yet factors affecting intervention success and efficiency are rarely evaluated and incorporated into practice. We coordinated regional efforts by divers to cull invasive lionfish ( Pterois spp.) on 33 U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean protected coral reefs from 2013 to 2019 and estimated removal efficiency and efficacy as a function of environmental and habitat conditions, invasion status, and personnel expertise. Highly experienced individuals culling during crepuscular periods (<2 hr from sunrise/sunset) are three times more efficient (in terms of minutes) than novice divers during midday, suggesting: (a) retention of experienced individuals is key for efficient programs, and (b) planning culls with personnel and time of day in mind increases the number of sites covered with the same effort. Lionfish behavior and habitat characteristics had little effect on removal efficiency and efficacy, but divers had higher capture success at reefs with higher lionfish densities. We suggest reefs with persistently <20 fish ha −1 as low priority, given that impacts to native fauna are unlikely and culling effectiveness declines to <50% below this level. Incorporating efficiency factors in spatial management planning along with density estimates derived from remotely sensed data can ensure limited resources for control are extended across a greater range of invaded habitats.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".