An ANN-based non-destructive model for age and maturity estimation in the data-deficient Goldblotch Grouper (Epinephelus costae): A practical tool for data-poor fisheries in conflict-affected Mediterranean coasts


Abstract

The Goldblotch Grouper (Epinephelus costae) is listed as “Data Deficient” by the IUCN, yet it faces intense fishing pressure across the Eastern Mediterranean. In Syria, more than a decade of conflict has dismantled fisheries monitoring infrastructure, leaving managers without essential biological parameters for evidence-based conservation. Traditional methods for age and maturity assessment are destructive, require specialized laboratories, and are infeasible in post-conflict settings.
To address this gap, this study presents the first non-destructive ANN model to simultaneously estimate age and maturity status using total length as the sole input. The model was trained exclusively on 150 specimens collected from six Syrian coastal sites (Ras al-Bassit to Tartous) during 2024–2025. Age was determined by scale reading, and maturity status was assessed by macroscopic examination of gonads after dissection, revealing a contemporary length-at-first-maturity (Lₘ = 30 cm) in Syrian waters.
The feedforward multilayer perceptron (MLP) architecture (1–10–2) achieved high predictive accuracy, with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R = 0.9995) for age estimation (MSE = 0.0091 on the test set), and 100% maturity classification accuracy on the current independent test subset, though real-world performance may vary in other populations. Critically, our dataset includes individuals up to 74.3 cm and 12 years old—substantially larger and older than those reported in recent studies from neighboring regions—highlighting the value of targeted sampling methods (e.g., speargun) in accessing cryptic, large-bodied spawners. This ANN-based tool provides the first rapid, non-destructive, and field-applicable method for estimating population structure in E. costae under data-poor, conflict-affected conditions. By requiring only a length measurement, it empowers local fishers, NGOs, and fisheries officers to conduct real-time stock assessments—enabling science-informed management where traditional monitoring has collapsed.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].