MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessing the time of emergence of global ocean fish biomass using ensemble climate to fish simulations

2024· preprint· en· W4393381429 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Barrier, Olivier Maury, Roland Séférian, Yeray Santana‐Falcón, Matthieu Lengaigne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesopelagic zonePelagic zoneTrophic levelBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceClimate changeGlobal warmingFisheryOceanographyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyClimatologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is anticipated to considerably reduce global marine fish biomass, driving marine ecosystems into unprecedented states with no historical analogues. The Time of Emergence (ToE) marks the pivotal moment when climate conditions (i.e. signal) deviate from pre-industrial norms (i.e. noise). Leveraging ensemble climate-to-fish simulations, this study examines the ToE of epipelagic, migratory and mesopelagic fish biomass, alongside their main environmental drivers, for two contrasted climate-change scenarios. Globally-averaged biomass signals emerge over the historical period. Epipelagic biomass decline emerges earlier (1950) than mesozooplankton decline (2000) due to a stronger signal in the early 20th century, possibly related to trophic amplification induced by an early-emerging surface warming (1915). Trophic amplification is delayed for mesopelagic biomass due to postponed warming in the mesopelagic zone, resulting in a later emergence (2000). ToE displays strong size class dependence, with medium sizes (20 cm) experiencing delays compared to the largest (1 m) and smallest (1 cm) categories. Regional signal emergence lags behind the global average, with median ToE estimates of 2029, 2034 and 2033 for epipelagic, mesopelagic and migrant communities, respectively, due to systematically larger local noise compared to global one. These ToEs are also spatially heterogeneous, driven predominantly by the signal pattern, akin to mesozooplankton. Additionally, our findings underscore that mitigation efforts (i.e. transitioning from SSP5-8.5 to SSP1-2.6 scenario) have a potential to curtail emerging ocean surface signals by 40%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→