A Framework for Simulating Ecosystem Effects in Data-Poor Small-Scale Fisheries Using Science-Based and Local Ecological Knowledge-Based Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constant demand for seafood products and the undeniable effects of fishing on marine ecosystems make it urgent to implement an ecosystem approach, even in data-poor scenarios such as small-scale fisheries. Understanding the impacts of fishing is essential for promoting management strategies that prevent irreversible damage to marine ecosystems. Thus, ecosystem quantitative science-based models have been frequently used to evaluate the effects of fishing, although fishers’ local ecological knowledge (LEK) can aid the implementation of qualitative models, particularly in data-poor conditions. Here, we present a framework for simulating and assessing the effects of fishing following two strategies: (1) for both types of models, we simulated species removal scenarios, and (2) for quantitative science-based models, we fitted time series to dynamically assessed impacts. The impacts were analyzed through ecological indicators commonly used for quantitative models, and because these indicators cannot be easily estimated for qualitative models, we propose the use of topological indicators in both types of models. The approach was applied to three case studies of small-scale finfish fisheries in northwestern Mexico. We found that the ecosystem response to species removal was different in each case study and that the target species can play an important role in ecosystems, but their removal does not generate abrupt changes in the ecosystem structure. The quantitative science-based models were able to reproduce the historical catch trends, which allowed us to reveal that changes in ecosystems are indeed influenced by fishing effort but also by underlying primary productivity. Furthermore, topological and ecological indicators showed similar trends in the quantitative models, which suggests that the former could be useful when data-poor conditions allow only qualitative models. This result confirms the relevance of the participation of fishers in generating qualitative models and their decisive role in the discussion of co-management strategies and risk scenarios in a better-informed manner.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".