Chasing genetic structure in coralligenous reef invertebrates: patterns, criticalities and conservation issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation of coastal habitats is a global issue, yet biogenic reefs in temperate regions have received very little attention. They have a broad geographic distribution and are a key habitat in marine ecosystems impacted by human activities. In the Mediterranean Sea coralligenous reefs are biodiversity hot spots and are classified as sensitive habitats deserving conservation. Genetic diversity and structure influence demographic, ecological and evolutionary processes in populations and play a crucial role in conservation strategies. Nevertheless, a comprehensive view of population genetic structure of coralligenous species is lacking. Here, we reviewed the literature on the genetic structure of sessile and sedentary invertebrates of the Mediterranean coralligenous reefs. Linear regression models and meta-analytic approaches are used to assess the contributions of genetic markers, phylum, pelagic larval duration (PLD) and geographical distance to the population genetic structure. Our quantitative approach highlight that 1) most species show a significant genetic structure, 2) structuring differs between phyla, and 3) PLD does not appear to be a major driver of the structuring. We discuss the implication of these finding for the management and conservation, suggesting research areas that deserve attention, and providing recommendations for broad assessment and monitoring of genetic diversity in biogenic reefs species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".