The role of habitat creation in coral reef conservation: a case study from Aceh, Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We describe the successful creation of new reef habitat on Pulau Weh, Indonesia. Coral cover on artificial reef modules increased from a mean of 24±SE 2.4% 1 year after the initial attachment of Acropora spp. coral fragments to 64±SE 4.8% after 3 years. The artificial reef modules were also rapidly colonized by coral recruits. Recruit densities were 53±SE 3.2 m −2 on modules that had been submerged for only 1 year, nearly twice as high as recruit densities on natural reef substratum (31±2.8 m −2 ). Consequently, the original Acropora assemblage had increased to include at least 23 coral taxa, including 10 additional Acropora species. The artificial reefs also supported at least 29 reef fish species, from 11 families. Unfortunately, this initial success in habitat creation was abruptly halted by a rapid rise in sea temperature in May 2010 that killed almost all corals on the artificial reefs and on nearby natural reefs. Notwithstanding the general view that reef rehabilitation is yet to deliver ecological and conservation benefits at meaningful scales, other benefits of this project included raising the awareness of reef conservation in the local community, promotion of tourism on Pulau Weh and job creation. We conclude, therefore, that habitat creation has a legitimate role as part of an integrated marine conservation strategy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it