Patterns in larval reef fish distributions and assemblages, with implications for local retention in mesoscale eddies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benthic marine populations are often replenished by a combination of larvae from local and distant sources. To promote retention of locally spawned larvae in strong, unidirectional boundary current systems, benthic marine organisms must utilize biophysical mechanisms to minimize advective loss. We examined patterns in larval fish abundance, age distribution, and assemblage in relation to environmental variables in the Straits of Florida to better understand the factors underlying larval transport and retention in a boundary current system. Depth was the primary structuring element; larval assemblages were more distinct across vertical distances of tens of metres than they were over horizontal distances of tens to hundreds of kilometres. However, depth distributions were species-specific, and larval assemblages inside and outside of mesoscale eddies were distinct. Age distributions were consistent with the hypothesis that mesoscale eddies provide opportunities for retention. Our data indicate that the effect of eddies on larval retention is likely taxon-specific and temporally variable, as synchronization of reproductive output, larval distribution, and timing of eddy passage are prerequisite to entrainment and subsequent retention of locally spawned larvae.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".