Spatial distribution of life‐history traits and their response to environmental gradients across multiple marine taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Trait‐based approaches enable comparison of community composition across multiple organism groups. Yet, little is known about the degree to which empirical trait responses found for one taxonomic group can be generalized across organisms. In this study, we investigated the spatial variability of marine community‐weighted mean traits and compared their environmental responses across multiple taxa and habitats, including pelagic zooplankton (copepods), demersal fish, and benthic infaunal invertebrates. We used extensive, spatially explicit datasets collected from scientific surveys in the North Sea and examined community composition of these groups using a trait‐based approach. In order to cover the key biological characteristics of an organism, we considered three life‐history traits (adult size, offspring size, and fecundity) and taxon‐specific feeding traits. While many of the traits co‐varied in space and notably demonstrated a south–north gradient, none of the traits showed a consistent spatial distribution across all groups. However, traits are often correlated as a result of trade‐offs. When studying spatial patterns of multiple traits variability in fish and copepods, we showed a high spatial correlation. This also applied to a lesser extent to fish and benthic infauna, whereas no correlation was found between benthic infauna and copepods. The result suggested a decoupling in the community traits between strictly benthic and strictly pelagic species. The strongest drivers of spatial variability for many community traits are the gradients in temperature seasonality, primary productivity, fishing effort, and depth. Spatial variability in benthic traits also co‐varied with descriptors of the seabed habitat. Overall, results showed that trait responses to environmental gradients cannot be generalized across organism groups, pointing toward potential complex responses of multi‐taxa communities to environmental changes and highlighting the need for cross‐habitat multi‐trait analyses to foresee how environmental change will affect community structure and biodiversity at large.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".