MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299959899 · doi:10.47886/9781888569698.ch10

Propagated Fish in Resource Management

2004· book-chapter· en· W4299959899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Fisheries Society eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStockingFish stockBusinessFisheries managementAgency (philosophy)FisheryBiodiversityFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental resource managementGeographyEcologyBiologyFishingEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

&lt;em&gt;Abstract.&lt;/em&gt;—The use of cultured fishes by fisheries agencies is a long-standing management technique. In recent decades, however, potential negative impacts of fish stocking programs have received increased attention, particularly as they affect native fish communities and the genetic integrity of wild fish populations. In 1994, a facilitated workshop was organized to develop recommended procedures for the use of cultured fishes that would be compatible with these broader environmental concerns. We administered a survey to state and provincial fisheries management agencies in the United States and Canada to determine the current status of fish culture and stocking programs and assess progress toward adoption of these procedures. With 54 of 62 agencies reporting, our results indicated that stocking programs continue to be an integral part of management programs, but that substantial progress has been made toward addressing concerns about potential negative effects of cultured fishes. The percentage of responding agencies reporting use of management plans in which stocking was considered as part of a larger management program more than doubled in the years since 1980. Consistent with this finding, agency emphasis on alternative management approaches was evidenced by a twofold greater increase in expenditures on habitat management programs relative to culture programs in six agencies that provided budget figures. The percentage of responding agencies evaluating appropriateness of stocking through the use of formal criteria on at least half the waters where cultured fish were used tripled since 1980, and decisions not to stock due to potential impacts on biodiversity or the genetic integrity of recipient fish communities were reported to be four times more likely today than in 1980. Emphasis on the use of native fishes in stocking programs since 1980 was reported to have increased for more than half the agencies responding to our survey, and the number of agencies reporting development of broodstock plans for at least some of the species they cultured also doubled since 1980. Agency perceptions of angler attitudes concerning the importance of stocking indicated that the percentage of anglers who believed that stocking was the primary or only solution to low fish abundance remained high, at 61%, a decline of only 27% from reported attitudes in 1980. While positive strides have been made by agencies toward more careful evaluation of the appropriateness of stocking for achieving management objectives and in the institution of programs to minimize impacts of cultured fishes, these policies have not been adopted by all agencies, nor are they routinely used on all stocked waters by the agencies that have them. To make continued progress, agencies may be required to make difficult decisions regarding allocation of funding, and a more concerted effort to educate anglers and reduce public pressure for stockings will be needed to create an atmosphere where reduced emphasis on stocking is possible. The American Fisheries Society should play a continuing role in providing opportunities for scientists and policy makers to interact and discuss prevailing and emerging issues relative to the use of propagated fishes in resource management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Fisheries Society eBooksSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207