Representing taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: new challenges for<scp>M</scp>editerranean marine‐protected areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To assess gaps in the representation of taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity among coastal fishes inMediterranean marine‐protected areas (MPAs). Location MediterraneanSea. Methods We first assessed gaps in the taxonomic representation of the 340 coastal fish species inMediterraneanMPAs, with representation targets (the species range proportion to be covered byMPAs) set to be inversely proportional to species' range sizes. We then asked whetherMPAs favoured representation of phylogenetically and functionally more distinct species or whether there was a tendency to favour less distinctive ones. We finally evaluated the overall conservation effectiveness of theMPAs using a metric that integrates species' phylogenetic and functional relationships and targets achievement. The effectiveness of theMPAsystem at protecting biodiversity was assessed by comparison of its achievements against a null model obtained by siting currentMPAs at random over the study area. Results Among the coastal fish species analysed, 16 species were not covered by anyMPA. All the remaining species only partially achieved the pre‐defined representation target. The currentMPAsystem missed fewer species than expected from sitingMPAs at random. However,c. 70% of the species did not achieve better protection in the currentMPAs than expected from sitingMPAs at random. Functional and evolutionary distinctiveness were weakly correlated with target achievement. The observed coverage of taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity was not different or lower than expected from sitingMPAs at random. Main conclusions TheMediterraneanMPAsystem falls short in meeting conservation targets for coastal fish taxonomic diversity, phylogenetic diversity and functional diversity.MediterraneanMPAs do not encompass more biodiversity than expected by chance. This study reveals multiple ongoing challenges and calls for regional collaboration for the extension of theMediterranean system ofMPAs to meet international commitments and reduce the ongoing loss of marine biodiversity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".