Benthic community succession on artificial and natural coral reefs in the northern Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the efficacy of artificial structures in enhancing or sustaining biodiversity on tropical coral reefs is key to assessing their role in reef conservation or management. Here, we compare spatial and temporal patterns of colonization and succession of the benthic assemblage on settlement collectors (ceramic tiles) in a 13-mo mensurative experiment on a suspended artificial reef, a seafloor artificial reef, and two nearby natural reefs at Eilat, Gulf of Aqaba. We also conducted a concurrent 7-mo manipulative experiment on the suspended reef and one of the natural reefs, and monitored fish feeding behaviour on experimental collectors, to examine effects of large mobile consumers on these patterns. In both experiments, taxonomic composition as percent planar cover for the whole community or biomass for the invertebrate component differed between collector topsides, dominated by a filamentous algal matrix, and shaded undersides with a profuse assemblage of suspension- or filter-feeding invertebrates. In the mensurative experiment, we found differences in final community and invertebrate composition between sites, which clustered according to reef type (artificial vs. natural) for collector undersides. Invertebrate biomass was greater at both artificial reefs than at one (undersides) or both (topsides) natural reefs. In the manipulative experiment, we found similar differences in composition between sites/reef types as well as between treatments (exclusion vs. control), and the invertebrate biomass was greater on the artificial reef. Invertebrate biomass was greater in the exclusion treatment than the control on collector undersides, suggesting mobile consumers can affect community composition and abundance. Predominant fish species observed interacting with collectors differed between artificial and natural reefs, likely contributing to differences in patterns of colonization and succession between sites and reef types. Our findings suggest artificial reefs have the potential to enhance cover and biomass of certain reef-associated assemblages, particularly those occupying sheltered microhabitats.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".