The Relationship between Mean Length at Maturity and Maximum Length in Coral Reef Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a mechanism that triggers first maturation and spawning in coral reef (bony) fish, which allows for predicting their length at first maturity. Thus, mean lengths at first maturity (Lm) and the corresponding maximum lengths (Lmax) in 207 populations of 131 species of coral reef fish were assembled and used to test the hypotheses that (a) there is, in coral reef fish, a single value of a size-related parameter acting as a trigger for their maturation and eventual spawning, and (b) that this single value is statistically the same as that published previously for other bony fish. The results, based on the assembled Lm and Lmax data and on estimates of the parameter D, which link the length of fish with the relative surface of their gills, covered 44 families and Lmax values ranging from 1.8 to 181.6 cm and confirmed that the threshold in (a) exists. Also, we assessed (in b) that this threshold value, i.e., LmaxD/LmD = 1.35 (±0.02), is not statistically different from similar estimates for other groups of teleosts, notably semelparous salmonids, cichlids, sturgeons and Chinese and Turkish freshwater and marine fish. One implication is that given ocean warming and deoxygenation, coral reef fish will not only be smaller than they currently are, but also mature and spawn at smaller sizes, and thus produce fewer, smaller eggs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".