Science response: glass sponge reefs HSQCS MPA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) play important roles in conserving marine ecosystems worldwide. Under Canada’s Ocean’s Act, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) established nine Glass Sponge Reef Marine Refuges in the Strait of Georgia and eight in Howe Sound, British Columbia. Further to that, DFO established the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound (HSQCS) MPA (Figure 1) to protect glass sponge habitats within three spatially-distinct reef complexes—the Northern Reef, the Central Reefs, and the Southern Reef (Government of Canada 2017). Each reef complex is made up of three management zone types: the core protection zone (CPZ), adaptive management zone (AMZ) and vertical adaptive management zone (VMZ). While all harmful human activities are prohibited in the CPZs, the MPA Regulations allow for some limited fishing activities in the AMZs and VMZs—including recreational fisheries and Indigenous fishing for Food, Social and Ceremonial purposes. Currently, all commercial bottom-contact fishing and midwater trawling in the MPA is prohibited by Fisheries Act Variation Orders. While the HSQCS MPA is designed to protect unique marine ecosystems formed by glass sponge reefs, the effectiveness of the MPA depends on how well the AMZ boundaries function as a protective measure. The existing AMZ boundaries within the HSQCS MPA range from 0.6 to 4.5 km from the CPZ boundaries. The glass sponge reefs off British Columbia are the habitat for many commercially important fish and are subject to fishing pressure such as bottom-contact trawl fishing. Bottom-contact trawl fishing can result in physical damage to habitat directly, and also negatively impact on glass sponge reefs indirectly by suspending a large amount of sediment, which can then be transported into the CPZ. Glass sponges are highly efficient water filterers that constantly filter and pump in organic and inorganic particles. However, they can quickly arrest their pumping activities in response to the exposure to sediments. Multiple arrests may reduce energy uptake of glass sponges, which could negatively affect their health; while the long-term effects of repeated sediment exposure and arrests on their health and population remain to be a knowledge gap (Grant et al. 2019). Grant et al. (2018) found that in the Strait of Georgia, glass sponges cease pumping (arrested) at suspended sediment concentration far lower than concentrations that can be triggered by bottom-contact trawling. Furthermore, Grant et al. (2019) found that different species of glass sponges in the HSQCS MPA respond differently to the exposure of suspended sediments. They showed that the distance required from the AMZs to the CPZs depends on ocean environmental conditions and suggested that the existing AMZs in the HSQCS MPA may not be adequate to achieve effective conservation. DFO Oceans has requested DFO Science to: 1) assess whether the existing AMZ boundaries are sufficient to protect the glass sponge reefs from suspended sedimentation impacts of mobile, bottom contact fishing gear, and 2) estimate new AMZ boundaries if the current boundaries do not provide sufficient protection for the sponge reefs. This Science Response Report results from the Regional Science Response Process of November 20, 2020 on Adaptive Management Zones for Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs Marine Protected Areas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.136 | 0.032 |
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".