Vulnerability of marine megafauna to global at‐sea anthropogenic threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine megafauna species are affected by a wide range of anthropogenic threats. To evaluate the risk of such threats, species' vulnerability to each threat must first be determined. We build on the existing threats classification scheme and ranking system of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species by assessing the vulnerability of 256 marine megafauna species to 23 at-sea threats. The threats we considered included individual fishing gear types, climate-change-related subthreats not previously assessed, and threats associated with coastal impacts and maritime disturbances. Our ratings resulted in 70 species having high vulnerability (v > 0.778 out of 1) to at least 1 threat, primarily drifting longlines, temperature extremes, or fixed gear. These 3 threats were also considered to have the most severe effects (i.e., steepest population declines). Overall, temperature extremes and plastics and other solid waste were rated as affecting the largest proportion of populations. Penguins, pinnipeds, and polar bears had the highest vulnerability to temperature extremes. Bony fishes had the highest vulnerability to drifting longlines and plastics and other solid waste; pelagic cetaceans to 4 maritime disturbance threats; elasmobranchs to 5 fishing threats; and flying birds to drifting longlines and 2 maritime disturbance threats. Sirenians and turtles had the highest vulnerability to at least one threat from all 4 categories. Despite not necessarily having severe effects for most taxonomic groups, temperature extremes were rated among the top threats for all taxa except bony fishes. The vulnerability scores we provide are an important first step in estimating the risk of threats to marine megafauna. Importantly, they help differentiate scope from severity, which is key to identifying threats that should be prioritized for mitigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".