Collapse of the oyster population in Apalachicola Bay: cascading social impacts from an ecologically and culturally significant species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically fishery-dependent communities can have significant economic, social, and cultural ties to key species, the loss of which can cause cascading impacts throughout the community, extending beyond fishers. Understanding the different ways communities depend on a species, and how the species’ loss may reverberate through the community, is key for holistic ecosystem management approaches. We propose that species that possess significant importance to the economic, cultural, social, and nutritional structuring of a human community be considered “multidimensional foundation species.” This study examines the multi-faceted impacts of oyster population collapse within the Apalachicola Bay region of Florida. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a variety of local community members, exploring the varying types of connections to oysters and how the oyster population collapse impacted community members individually and collectively. Individuals described economic, ecological, cultural, and nutritional impacts within their lives. Economic impacts were most common, but impacts differed substantially for individuals with different connections to oysters. We also documented broader collective changes, particularly loss of cultural ecosystem services tied to oysters, including negative shifts in community identity, individual identities of community members, and social well-being. We found a greater de-coupling between tourism and the fishery than hypothesized, with tourism reported to have increased despite the collapse in oysters, demonstrating the challenges of predicting impacts from the decline of a multidimensional foundation species. This work highlights the need to understand how harvestable foundation species may not only form the base of ecological systems, but also influence the economic, cultural, and social dimensions of human systems. In the face of continual global fishery declines, implementing management actions that consider the far-reaching ecological and social importance of fisheries species will be crucial for promoting community well-being and resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".