MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409340910 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02218-z

Fisheries disrupt marine nutrient cycles through biomass extraction

2025· article· en· W4409340910 on OpenAlexaff
Adrián A. González Ortiz, Timothy E. Walsworth, Edd Hammill, Maria Lourdes D. Palomares, Daniel Pauly, Trisha B. Atwood

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersUtah State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFisheryBiomass (ecology)NutrientEnvironmental scienceExtraction (chemistry)BiologyEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fisheries’ effects on marine life have been widely acknowledged for decades, but only recently have we considered their impact on marine nutrient cycles. Through the removal of marine biomass, fisheries represent a unique and historically novel pathway for nutrients to be extracted from the sea. Here, we examined the magnitude of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus extraction by industrial fisheries through large spatiotemporal scales and broad ecological contexts. Between 1960 and 2018, industrial fisheries removed approximately 431 million tonnes of carbon, 110 million tonnes of nitrogen, and 23 million tonnes of phosphorus. Nutrient extractions occurred most intensely in highly productive regions within Exclusive Economic Zones. Additionally, >53% of all nutrient extractions occurred through the removal of mid-level trophic groups and pelagic species. Our findings indicate that fisheries can remove substantial amounts of nutrients each year and warrant further studies that consider the ecosystem-level impacts of nutrient reductions. Fisheries remove substantial amounts of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus from the ocean each year through marine biomass, according to analysis of industrial catch and nutrient composition data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207