A comparison of sponge assemblage patterns in two adjacent rocky habitats (tropical Pacific Ocean, Mexico)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sponge assemblages were examined simultaneously in 2 shallow habitats (consolidated rocks and boulder tops) in May and November 2002 in Mazatlán Bay. Important differences were found between the assemblages in the 2 habitats, despite them being only 40–50 m apart. Total (35) and exclusive (25) species richness were higher on boulders than on consolidated rocks (22 and 12, respectively), and only 10 species occurred in both habitats simultaneously. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) in combination with analysis cluster revealed a disjunct pattern in the distribution of sponges between habitats. These analyses also showed that the structure of these assemblages varied less over time in consolidated rocks (60% similarity between times) than in the boulders (40% similarity). In fact, the number of species was less variable on consolidated rocks (from 15 to 16 species from May to November) than on boulders (from 12 to 32). The patterns presented here show that the sponge assemblages were not homogeneous in rocky habitats but varied over small spatial scales. The assemblages were more stable on consolidated rocks (the most stable habitat), but diversity was higher in the unstable habitat than on consolidated rocks. However, although the habitat type played an important role in explaining these differences, variables covarying with depth, such as water movement and habitat stability, constituted major environmental factors responsible for the differences observed in sponge assemblage structure between habitats.Nomenclature: Hooper & van Soest, 2002.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".