MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the role of environmental variables in shaping patterns of seabed biodiversity composition in regional‐scale ecosystems

2012· article· en· W1857364208 on OpenAlexaff
C. Roland Pitcher, Peter Lawton, Nick Ellis, Stephen J. Smith, Lewis S. Incze, Chih‐Lin Wei, Michelle E. Greenlaw, Nicholas H. Wolff, Jessica A. Sameoto, Paul V. R. Snelgrove

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Marine Fisheries Service
KeywordsBiodiversityBiotaEnvironmental gradientEnvironmental scienceEcosystemEcologyMarine ecosystemEnvironmental changeEnvironment variableSpatial ecologyGeographyScale (ratio)Physical geographyHabitatClimate changeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Environmental variables are often used as indirect surrogates for mapping biodiversity because species survey data are scant at regional scales, especially in the marine realm. However, environmental variables are measured on arbitrary scales unlikely to have simple, direct relationships with biological patterns. Instead, biodiversity may respond nonlinearly and to interactions between environmental variables.2. To investigate the role of the environment in driving patterns of biodiversity composition in large marine regions, we collated multiple biological survey and environmental data sets from tropical NE Australia, the deep Gulf of Mexico and the temperate Gulf of Maine. We then quantified the shape and magnitude of multispecies responses along >30 environmental gradients and the extent to which these variables predicted regional distributions. To do this, we applied a new statistical approach, Gradient Forest, an extension of Random Forest, capable of modelling nonlinear and threshold responses.3. The regional-scale environmental variables predicted an average of 13-35% (up to 50-85% for individual species) of the variation in species abundance distributions. Important predictors differed among regions and biota and included depth, salinity, temperature, sediment composition and current stress. The shapes of responses along gradients also differed and were nonlinear, often with thresholds indicative of step changes in composition. These differing regional responses were partly due to differing environmental indicators of bioregional boundaries and, given the results to date, may indicate limited scope for extrapolating bio-physical relationships beyond the region of source data sets.4.Synthesis and applications. Gradient Forest offers a new capability for exploring relationships between biodiversity and environmental gradients, generating new information on multispecies responses at a detail not available previously. Importantly, given the scarcity of data, Gradient Forest enables the combined use of information from disparate data sets. The gradient response curves provide biologically informed transformations of environmental layers to predict and map expected patterns of biodiversity composition that represent sampled composition better than uninformed variables. The approach can be applied to support marine spatial planning and management and has similar applicability in terrestrial realms.Gradient Forest offers a new capability for exploring relationships between biodiversity and environmental gradients, generating new information on multispecies responses at a detail not available previously. Importantly, given the scarcity of data, Gradient Forest enables the combined use of information from disparate data sets. The gradient response curves provide biologically informed transformations of environmental layers to predict and map expected patterns of biodiversity composition that represent sampled composition better than uninformed variables. The approach can be applied to support marine spatial planning and management and has similar applicability in terrestrial realms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations113
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207