Potential feedback between coral presence and farmerfish collective behavior promotes coral recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable between‐group differences in collective behavior have been documented in a variety of social taxa. Here we evaluate the effects of such variation, often termed collective or colony‐level personality, on coral recovery in a tropical marine farmerfish system. Groups of the farmerfish Stegastes nigricans cultivate and defend gardens of palatable algae on coral reefs in the Indo‐Pacific. These gardens can promote the recruitment, growth, and survival of corals by providing a refuge from coral predation. Here we experimentally evaluate whether the collective response of farmerfish colonies is correlated across intruder feeding guilds – herbivores, corallivores and egg‐eating predators. Further, we evaluate if overall colony responsiveness or situation‐specific responsiveness (i.e. towards herbivores, corallivores, or egg‐eaters in particular) best predicts the growth of outplanted corals. Finally, we experimentally manipulated communities within S. nigricans gardens, adding either macroalgae or large colonies of coral, to assess if farmerfish behavior changes in response to the communities they occupy. Between‐group differences in collective responsiveness were repeatable across intruder guilds. Despite this consistency, responsiveness towards corallivores (porcupinefish and ornate butterflyfish) was a better predictor of outplanted coral growth than responsiveness towards herbivores or egg‐eaters. Adding large corals to farmerfish gardens increased farmerfish attacks towards intruders, pointing to possible positive feedback loops between their aggression towards intruders and the presence of corals whose growth they facilitate. These data provide evidence that among‐group behavioral variation could strongly influence the ecological properties of whole communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".