Contrasting larval transport in demersal fish and benthic invertebrates: the roles of behaviour and advective processes in determining spatial pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many benthic invertebrates and demersal fish have planktonic larvae and must therefore balance dispersal to new habitat with the need to settle where survival and growth are possible. We review published studies to determine whether the discontinuity in the literature between these groups represents a real ecological difference. Specifically, we examine the roles of biological and physical processes and the scales at which these processes act in pattern formation in fish and invertebrates. For most of the physical mechanisms that influence larval transport at different scales, we find examples of fish and invertebrate studies that are important at each scale. A comparison of planktonic durations suggests that more invertebrate species have highly limited dispersal potential. Comparison of dispersal potential and geographic range suggests that planktonic duration may play a role in defining the geographic range of species in both cases. Fish larvae were generally faster swimmers than invertebrate larvae, suggesting that swimming may contribute to pattern formation at larger spatial scales. In contrast, the documented capacity to delay metamorphosis is more prevalent in invertebrates and may be related to the greater mobility of adult fish relative to invertebrates. Ultimately, similar processes operate in both groups, although sometimes at different scales.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".