Forgotten whales, fading codfish: Perceptions of ‘natural’ ecosystems inform visions of future recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Perceptions of past ecological change affect views of current ecosystem state, but how do baselines help to shape stakeholders' visions of an idealized future? Here, we investigate links between perceptions of natural baselines and visions for the nearshore Gulf of Maine among a key stakeholder group, active lobster fishers. We ask three related questions: (1) What do fishers perceive as a ‘natural’ Gulf of Maine? (2) How do perceptions of the past predict individual and collective visions of an ideal future? and (3) How is existing management perceived as supporting these visions? We found that fishers perceived the ecosystem to be ‘natural’ an average of one decade before they started fishing. Three species dominated views of natural systems: cod Gadus morhua , lobster Homarus americanus , and herring Clupea harengus , but while long‐time fishers associated abundant cod with a natural nearshore Gulf of Maine, memories of a historically cod‐rich Gulf of Maine were fading among some younger fishers who began their careers after the cod crash in the 1990s. Perceptions of ‘natural’ ecosystems dictated future visions for the majority of taxa; on average, fishers remembered and desired abundant cod and herring, but perceived halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus and endangered right whales Eubalaena glacialis to have always been rare. Fishers described a vision for the future based on views of past ecological and social baselines, including fisheries deconsolidation and diversification, but expressed a lack of shared vision with and trust in federal management institutions to achieve these goals. In particular, memories of cod abundance in the 1970s and 1980s were coupled with memories of a diversified and accessible fishery, but fishers doubted that the recovery of cod would result in their restored access to cod fisheries. Together our results demonstrate that past personal experiences limit perceptions of what is possible, highlighting both the value and limitations of local ecological knowledge in places that have experienced ecological change over centuries. They also demonstrate how stakeholder perceptions of both social and ecological baselines shape visions for future ecosystems but are mediated by contemporary issues like trust in institutions and fisheries access. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".