Marine protected areas can increase the abundance of invasive lionfish ( <i>Pterois miles</i> )
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Marine protected areas (MPAs) can protect and restore marine biodiversity and fisheries, but there are concerns that they may also benefit invasive species. The spatial and temporal colonization of invasive lionfish ( Pterois miles ) in the eastern Mediterranean was compared across zones with varying fishing restrictions (no fishing, recreational and commercial fishing, and commercial fishing only), and stations where targeted removal events were conducted by volunteer SCUBA divers. Lionfish density in no fishing areas was nearly double that of areas with commercial fishing only, and over four times greater than in areas where both commercial and recreational fishing were allowed. Lionfish density increased with depth, possibly due to easier human exploitation in shallow waters (0–10 m) that are accessible to recreational spearfishers. Targeted removals by volunteer divers decreased lionfish densities by over 60%, while areas without removals had a 200%–400% increase. Along with management actions, natural and ecological processes might drive lionfish densities within MPAs, and the speed with which lionfish colonized fishery‐restricted zones, emphasized the need for a more sophisticated MPA management strategy that considers invasive species impacts and dynamics in an ecosystem‐based approach.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it