Spatial resilience of the Great Barrier Reef under cumulative disturbance impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the face of increasing cumulative effects from human and natural disturbances, sustaining coral reefs will require a deeper understanding of the drivers of coral resilience in space and time. Here we develop a high‐resolution, spatially explicit model of coral dynamics on Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Our model accounts for biological, ecological and environmental processes, as well as spatial variation in water quality and the cumulative effects of coral diseases, bleaching, outbreaks of crown‐of‐thorns starfish ( Acanthaster cf. solaris ), and tropical cyclones. Our projections reconstruct coral cover trajectories between 1996 and 2017 over a total reef area of 14,780 km 2 , predicting a mean annual coral loss of −0.67%/year mostly due to the impact of cyclones, followed by starfish outbreaks and coral bleaching. Coral growth rate was the highest for outer shelf coral communities characterized by digitate and tabulate Acropora spp. and exposed to low seasonal variations in salinity and sea surface temperature, and the lowest for inner‐shelf communities exposed to reduced water quality. We show that coral resilience (defined as the net effect of resistance and recovery following disturbance) was negatively related to the frequency of river plume conditions, and to reef accessibility to a lesser extent. Surprisingly, reef resilience was substantially lower within no‐take marine protected areas, however this difference was mostly driven by the effect of water quality. Our model provides a new validated, spatially explicit platform for identifying the reefs that face the greatest risk of biodiversity loss, and those that have the highest chances to persist under increasing disturbance regimes.
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".