Mapping world-wide distributions of marine mammal species using a relative environmental suitability (RES) model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of comprehensive sighting data sets precludes the application of standard habitat suitability modeling approaches to predict distributions of the majority of marine mammal species on very large scales. As an alternative, we developed an ecological niche model to map global distributions of 115 cetacean and pinniped species living in the marine environment using more readily available expert knowledge about habitat usage. We started by assigning each species to broad-scale niche categories with respect to depth, sea-surface temperature, and ice edge association based on synopses of published information. Within a global information system framework and a global grid of 0.5 latitude/longitude cell dimensions, we then generated an index of the relative environmental suitability (RES) of each cell for a given species by relating known habitat usage to local environmental conditions. RES predictions closely matched published maximum ranges for most species, thus representing useful, more objective alternatives to existing sketched distributional outlines. In addition, raster-based predictions provided detailed information about heterogeneous patterns of potentially suitable habitat for species throughout their range. We tested RES model outputs for 11 species (northern fur seal, harbor porpoise, sperm whale, killer whale, hourglass dolphin, fin whale, humpback whale, blue whale, Antarctic minke, and dwarf minke whales) from a broad taxonomic and geographic range, using data from dedicated surveys. Observed encounter rates and species-specific predicted environmental suitability were significantly and positively correlated for all but 1 species. In comparison, encounter rates were correlated with <1 % of 1000 simulated random data sets for all but 2 species. Mapping of large-scale marine mammal distributions using this environmental envelope model is helpful for evaluating current assumptions and knowledge about species' occurrences, especially for data-poor species. Moreover, RES modeling can help to focus research efforts on smaller geographic scales and usefully supplement other, statistical, habitat suitability models. Inter-Research 2006.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".