Parrotfish Body Size As An Indicator of Diurnal Fish Species Richness On Fringing Coral Reefs in Barbados
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coral reefs around the world are host to some of the most condensed and varied ecosystems. However, over the past decades, their biodiversity has alarmingly decreased. A rapid and reliable way of assessing their status is urgently needed to monitor and prevent their decline. The purpose of this study is to assess whether or not family Scaridae (common name: parrotfish) body size can be used as an index to evaluate the diurnal fish diversity on coral reefs. Methods: We selected 6 accessible reefs on the West coast of Barbados and measured the size of parrotfish we encountered, as well as the number of fish species present on the reef; this data was then plotted and statistically analyzed to establish a possible correlation. Results: Our results show that reef fish species richness is strongly correlated to both the ratio of large to small parrotfish and the average parrotfish size. It is however the large to small ratio that exhibited the strongest relationship. Further analysis revealed that the population size of large parrotfish correlates with reef biodiversity with a Pearson’s r coefficient of 0.97. Conclusion: This relationship could be due to the fact that large parrotfish (greater than or equal to 20 cm) have increased grazing rates compared to smaller ones, this increased grazing promotes coral polyp recruitment, thereby benefiting the diversity observed on coral reefs. Further research is needed to elucidate whether these results can be extended to other areas of the Caribbean and provide conservation efforts with an easy tool to survey and protect coral reef ecosystems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".