Predicting distributions, habitat preferences and associated conservation implications for a genus of rare fishes, seahorses (<i>Hippocampus</i> spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To identify useful sources of species data and appropriate habitat variables for species distribution modelling on rare species, with seahorses as an example, deriving ecological knowledge and spatially explicit maps to advance global seahorse conservation. Location The shallow seas. Methods We applied a typical species distribution model (SDM), maximum entropy, to examine the utility of (1) two versions of habitat variables (habitat occurrences vs. proximity to habitats) and (2) three sources of species data: quality research‐grade (RG) data, quality‐unknown citizen science (CS) and museum‐collection (MC) data. We used the best combinations of species data and habitat variables to predict distributions and estimate species–habitat relations and threatened status for seahorse species. Results We demonstrated that using “proximity to habitats” and integrating all species datasets (RG, CS and MC) derived models with the highest accuracies among all dataset variations. Based on this finding, we derived reliable models for 33 species. Our models suggested that only 0.4% of potential seahorse range was suitable to more than three species together; seahorse biogeographic epicentres were mainly in the Philippines; and proximity to sponges was an important habitat variable. We found that 12 “Data Deficient” species might be threatened based on our predictions according to IUCN criteria. Main conclusions We highlight that using proper habitat variables (e.g., proximity to habitats) is critical to determine distributions and key habitats for low‐mobility animals; collating and integrating quality‐unknown occurrences (e.g., CS and MC) with quality research data are meaningful for building SDMs for rare species. We encourage the application of SDMs to estimate area of occupancy for rare organisms to facilitate their conservation status assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".