Scale dependence of environmental controls on the functional diversity of coral reef fish communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The functional composition of local assemblages is hypothesized to be controlled by hierarchical environmental filters, whereby the importance of different abiotic and biotic factors varies across both spatial scales and the different dimensions of functional diversity. We examine scale dependence in functional diversity–environment relationships with the ultimate aim of advancing models that predict the response of functional diversity to global change. Location Coral reefs surrounding 23 minimally disturbed central‐western Pacific islands. Time period 2010–2015. Major taxa studied Coral reef fishes. Methods We surveyed 1,423 reef sites using a standardized monitoring protocol and classified the 547 taxa encountered based on traits related to resource use, body size and behaviour. For each fish community, we calculated species richness and three metrics of functional diversity: functional richness, functional redundancy and functional evenness. We then built nested models at three spatial scales to evaluate the predictive power of environmental conditions over each component of functional diversity. Results Climatic variables (e.g., primary productivity) and geomorphic context (e.g., bathymetric slope) were more important in predicting functional diversity at coarse spatial scales. In contrast, local measures of habitat quality, including benthic complexity, depth and hard coral cover, were generally most important at finer scales. All diversity metrics were better predicted at coarser scales, but which predictors were important varied among metrics. Main conclusions The observed scale dependence in environmental predictors of functional diversity generally matches models of hierarchical filters on functional community assembly. Contrary to expectation, however, functional evenness and functional redundancy, which incorporate information on biomass distributions, were not better predicted at finer spatial scales. Instead, broad‐scale variation in environmental variables was most important in predicting all components of functional diversity. Furthermore, the distinct responses of each functional diversity metric to environmental variation indicate that each measures a unique dimension of reef‐fish diversity, and environmental change may affect each differently.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".