Exploitation and habitat degradation as agents of change within coral reef fish communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over‐exploitation and habitat degradation are the two major drivers of global environmental change and are responsible for local extinctions and declining ecosystem services. Here we compare the top‐down effect of exploitation by fishing with the bottom‐up influence of habitat loss on fish communities in the most diverse of ecological systems, coral reefs. Using a combination of multivariate techniques and path analyses, we illustrate that the relative importance of coral cover and fishing in controlling fish abundance on remote Fijian reefs varies between species and functional groups. A decline in branching Acropora coral is strongly associated with a decline in abundance of coral‐feeding species, and a decrease in coral‐associated habitat complexity, which has indirectly contributed to reduced abundance of small‐bodied damselfish. In contrast, reduced fishing pressure, brought about by declining human populations and a shift to alternate livelihoods, is associated with increased abundance of some piscivores and fisheries target species. However, availability of prey is controlled by coral‐associated habitat complexity and appears to be a more important driver of total piscivore abundance compared with fishing pressure. Effects of both fishing and coral loss are stronger on individual species than functional groups, as variation in the relative importance of fishing or coral loss among species within the same functional group attenuated the impact of either of these potential drivers at the functional level. Overall, fishing continues to have an influence on Fijian fish communities; however, habitat loss is currently the overriding agent of change. The importance of coral loss mediated by climate change is expected to have an increasing contribution to fish community dynamics, particularly in remote locations or where the influence of fishing is waning.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".