Complex reef architecture supports more small-bodied fishes and longer food chains on Caribbean reefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coral community shifts towards reefs dominated by stress-resistant corals have contributed to rapid declines in the architectural complexity of reefs throughout the Caribbean. Complex reef architecture provides important niches and refuges for many reef fishes and thus widespread declines in reef complexity could have important consequences for the structure and function of fish assemblages. We explore the influence of reef architecture on fish assemblages by comparing the size and trophic structure of reef fishes along a 20 km-long 15-reef gradient of coral cover, coral species dominance and architectural complexity in Cozumel, Mexico. Our results show that reefs with high architectural complexity, in particular those dominated by robust Montastraea corals, supported fish assemblages with larger numbers of individuals in the smallest size classes (<20 cm) and longer food chains (higher mean trophic levels). The association between coral complexity and fish communities is highly size-structured and is greatest for smallest size classes. The greater abundance of both small fish and the key early life stages of larger fishes on more complex reefs suggests that architectural complexity may influence entire reef fish assemblages, even though larger fish are less dependent on reef complexity. Key reef-building corals such as Montastraea are thus likely to be disproportionately important for maintaining reef fish communities, and shifts in Caribbean coral communities may compromise fish recruitment and truncate food chains, reducing resilience and inhibiting reef recovery from degradation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".