The ontogeny of habitat associations in the tropical tiger tail seahorse <i>Hippocampus comes</i> Cantor, 1850
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how habitat associations changed with ontogeny in the tiger tail seahorse Hippocampus comes Cantor, 1850, over four reef zones in a coral reef ecosystem. Hippocampus comes showed ontogenetic differences in their use of habitat at the scale of reef zones (macrohabitat) and holdfasts (microhabitat). Across reef zones, juvenile size classes (25–105 mm standard length, LS) were most abundant in wild macroalgal beds (Sargassum spp.) (55·7%), while adults (>105 mm LS) occupied both coral reefs (39·7%) and macroalgal beds (42·7%). Microhabitat use also varied with ontogeny. Juveniles generally used macroalgal holdfasts, while adults >135 mm LS used a greater diversity of specialized microhabitats that included branching sponges, branching corals and tall seagrass. Ontogenetic changes in habitat association, as well as size‐related shifts in crypsis and aggregation, suggest that H. comes experiences fitness trade‐offs that vary with size; juveniles may associate with habitat that reduces predation, while larger individuals may use distinct microhabitat in reef zones to optimize reproductive success. Results are discussed in the context of targeted exploitation, expanding artisanal mariculture, habitat damage from illegal fishing and reserve design.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".