MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908527237 · doi:10.25607/obp-1690

Management and utilization of seals in Greenland, February 2015. Addendum to: White Paper on Management and Utilization of Seals in Greenland (April 2012).

2015· other· en· W6908527237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)PopulationFecundityMaximum sustainable yieldAddendumStock assessmentReproductionSustainable yield

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document is an addendum to the White Paper on Management and Utilization of Seals in Greenland from April 2012 and the two documents should be read together. Box 1: Abundant seal populations Harp seal: Advice on sustainable use on harp seal is given by a working group under the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES/NAFO: WGHARP). The working group consists of scientist from Norway, Canada, Greenland and Russia. Roughly every fifth year the pup production is estimated by surveys. The total number of seals in the stock is then calculated based on the survey estimate and data on the age-distribution in the stock, age of sexual maturity, the reproduction rate of the adult females and data on the catches. In many years the working group calculated quotas small enough to allow the stocks to grow. This led to a steady growth in periods when the quotas were taken and strong growth in periods with small commercial catches. The stock that give birth in the Greenland Sea seem to continue its growth, but the west Atlantic population that whelp around Newfoundland now seem to have reached the carrying capacity of its habitat. This means that the fecundity of the seals has been significantly reduced, so that the population no longer produces a surplus every year. New management principles, which allow a reduction of the seal populations has therefore been introduced. The reduction is limited to a magnitude that secures a large and healthy population, which will produce up to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of the population. A population around the carrying capacity produce no surplus (pup production roughly equals natural mortality). A surplus is created and increase as the population is reduced down to a point with the maximum sustainable yield. For harp seals this is a point (believed to be around 70% of the carrying capacity level), when both the population and the reproduction is high. The new management principles allow a reduction of the populations to 70% of their maximum levels. Quotas can therefore be set based on ecological or socioeconomic considerations as long as the population is kept above 70% of Nmax, which for the West Atlantic population has been set to 7.8 million - the level found in 2008. If the stock gets below 70 %, of the maximal size, a management plan should be initiated with the purpose of increasing the stock above 70 % again. If the stock gets below 50 %, further protection measures should be initiated, and if the stock gets below 30 % all hunting should be stopped. This type of management should only be used for stocks with reliable and plenty data. ICES/NAFO working group on harp and hooded seals estimated the population in the Northwest Atlantic to be approximately 7.4 million seals in 2014. This is a reduction of 400,000 seals since 2008, but this reduction has mainly been caused by low reproduction and high natural mortality (many pups dying in years with poor ice conditions in the whelping areas). The total allowable catch (TAC) for Canada is set to 400,000 (since 2011). , but catches in Canada has since 2008 been far below the TAC. In 2013, Greenland caught about 79,600 harp seals while Canada caught about 94,000 harp seals, less than 44 % of the TAC. Ringed seal: In 1996 a working group established by The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission’s (NAMMCO) Scientific Committee concluded that Greenland’s current take of ringed seal was sustainable. Three substantial arguments for this conclusion were that the current hunting pressure has been maintained for a number of years without visible signs of a decline in the population, that Greenland’s take is particularly made up of males and very young individuals and that the ringed seal’s very wide and even distribution across most of the Arctic limits large-scale overexploitation. Even though ringed seals are widely dispersed and apparently capable of surviving under very severe ice conditions, they are considered vulnerable to sudden changes in ice coverage. 4 Box 1: continued The total number of ringed seals is still unknown, but is estimated to 6-7 million. Among them, approx. 1 million are of the subspecies Pusa hispida ochotensis, while the other three southern subspecies together only constitute in the region of 10,000 individuals. The estimate of Arctic ringed seals is about 5 million. Hooded seal: ICES/NAFO working group on harp and hooded seals estimates the current population in the Northwest Atlantic at 600,000 seals in 2005 (last assessment), which is an increase from 478,000 in 1965. In Canada the TAC on hooded seals older than bluebacks has been at 8,200 seals since 2008. It is, however, mainly the blue back skin that is of interest for the sealers and in recent years less than hundred hooded seals have been caught annually in Canada. No hooded seals were reported taken in 2013 and according to the preliminary estimates for 2014 only 7 hooded seal was taken. In 2013, Greenland caught 1,498 hooded seals, which is the lowest catch since 1962. The population is not considered endangered. The Greenland Sea stock of hooded seal was severely overexploited by Norwegian sealers in the years after the Second World War. It is presently at a level around 80,000, which is believed to be less than 30 % of former levels and all commercial hunting has stopped. Since 2007 only few seals have been taken for scientific purposes and a small insignificant number (since 2006 less than 10/yr.) is taken by hunters from the Greenland settlement Ittoqqortoormiit

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission)Same topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207