Food-Web and Ecosystem Structure of the Open-Ocean and Deep-Sea Environments of the Azores, NE Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive intends to adopt ecosystem-based management for resources, biodiversity and habitats that puts emphasis on maintaining the health of the ecosystem alongside appropriate human use of the marine environment, for the benefit of current and future generations. Within the overall framework of ecosystem-based management, ecosystem models are tools to evaluate and gain insights in ecosystem properties. The low data availability and complexity of modelling deep-water ecosystems has limited the application of ecosystem models to few deep-water ecosystems. Here, we aim to develop an ecosystem model for the deep-sea and open ocean in the Azores exclusive economic zone with the overarching objective of characterising the food-web and ecosystem structure of the ecosystem. An ecosystem model with 45 functional groups, including a detritus group, two primary producer groups, eight invertebrate groups, 29 fish groups, three marine mammal groups, a turtle and a seabird group was built. Overall data quality measured by the pedigree index was estimated to be higher than the mean value of all published models. Therefore, the model was built with source data of an overall reasonable quality, especially considering the normally low data availability for deep-sea ecosystems. The total biomass (excluding detritus) of the modelled ecosystem for the whole area was calculated as 24.7 t km-². The mean trophic level for the total marine catch of the Azores was estimated to be 3.95, similar to the trophic level of the bathypelagic and medium-size pelagic fish. Trophic levels for the different functional groups were estimated to be similar to those obtained with stable isotopes and stomach contents analyses, with some exceptions on both ends of the trophic spectra. Omnivory indices were in general low, indicating prey speciation for the majority of the groups. Cephalopods, pelagic sharks and toothed whales were identified as groups with key ecological roles in the ecosystem. Due to concerns on the use of ecosystem models with low confidence in exploring management decisions and ecological theories, the current version of this model should only be use with caution until biomass estimates are validated with survey data or the model is fitted to time
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".