Elucidating Marine Biogeography with Macrophytes: Quantitative Analysis of the North Atlantic Supports the Thermogeographic Model and Demonstrates a Distinct Subarctic Region in the Northwestern Atlantic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Quantitative analysis of North Atlantic macrophyte (seaweed) abundance was used to test the thermogeographic model (TM) of marine biogeography. The TM uses coastal area and seawater temperature over Pleistocene time to reveal long-term climate/ area clusters that predict biogeographic regions. An earlier study with the TM predicted 20 of 24 classical biogeographic regions; the 4 omitted regions were either weak, disputed, or structurally (sandy/silty regions) inapplicable to the TM. The TM predicted a new western North Atlantic Subarctic Region, centered on the Strait of Belle Isle and lying between Newfoundland and Labrador. In contrast, Nova Scotia and the Gulf of Maine were found to be a Boreal/Subarctic transition zone. The predictions of the TM were earlier supported with coralline algal abundances, and here are supported by a test with macrophyte assemblages.Seaweed assemblages were studied at 51 primary SCUBA stations with 4–7 standard depth zones at each station from southern Labrador to Cape Elizabeth, ME. Meter-square quadrats were taken at each station, followed by at-sea sorting, identification, and weighing of biomass by species. A permanent record of these studies is provided by archived underwater photography and voucher herbarium samples, including tissue in silica gel to support future DNA analyses. Comparisons of European seaweed assemblages were accomplished by re-analyzing semi-quantitative data available in the literature.We demonstrate with the biomass data that a 3000-km stretch of coast (i.e., northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, northeastern Newfoundland, and southern Labrador) that is centered on the Strait of Belle Isle has a unique assemblage of seaweeds. In its location and marine climate, this coast closely matches the Subarctic Region predicted by the TM. Based on graphic demonstration, this Subarctic Region is radically different from that of Nova Scotia and the Gulf of Maine, and its dominant species derive from the North Pacific Ocean. Several different statistical approaches applied to the macrophyte data demonstrate the strength of these findings, while also finding that a subset of Subarctic species persists in deeper water to the south in the transition zone (i.e., southwestern Nova Scotia, Gulf of Maine). Only a very small proportion of the seaweed flora of the Subarctic Region is Arctic in origin (<4%). Earlier geographic analyses of biodiversity did not discover the Subarctic Region because rare species hide the strength of assemblages based on abundance.Many of the dominant seaweeds in the transitional region of the Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia occur widely in Europe, and are Boreal in origin. Such Boreal species form 47–80% of the macrophyte biomass at depths shallower than 5 m in the northwestern Atlantic transition zone southwest of the Subarctic Region. In deeper water (>5 m), however, European Boreal species are only 22–25% of the macrophyte biomass. Although many of the dominant, shallow sublittoral species of the European Boreal flora have made the North Atlantic passage, only about 10% (by biomass) of mid-depth species (2.5–5 m) have crossed and even fewer of the deeper European species are found in the northwestern Atlantic. A few European “Boreal” seaweeds reach further north into the Subarctic Region, but only at low levels of biomass and primarily at mid-depths (2.5–5 m). The Subarctic is inhospitable for establishment of such species in shallow water because of low winter temperatures and sea ice, and in deeper water by low summer temperatures (<5 °C).Few ecologists have had the opportunity to work in the Subarctic Region; instead, most of the recent descriptive and experimental studies of northwestern Atlantic ecosystems are based on studies in the smaller transition zone in the Gulf of Maine and southwestern Nova Scotia. Consequently, we provide detailed photographic, tabular, and graphic descriptions of the seaweed assemblages within the Subarctic and their interactions with
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».