Are fish associations with corals and sponges more than an affinity to structure? Evidence across two widely divergent ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems as habitat for marine fishes has been widely studied, with many finding significant associations, especially for rockfishes. However, rockfishes also thrive in areas largely devoid of corals and sponges. We compared the use of deep-sea corals and sponges by fish species in two ecosystems. Rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) and Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) densities were significantly correlated to structured seafloors at the scale of transects across both regions. Regional effects were not significant for most rockfish species and Pacific cod. At smaller scales only Pacific cod and rockfishes had significant associations with structure. The size of the individual fish and the size of the structure both had significant impacts on the distance of fish from structure, with smaller fish closer to structure and closer to smaller structure. Over half of the individual fishes surveyed were associated with sponges. The implication of this research is that the presence of structure increases the density of rockfishes, and removal of deep-sea corals and sponges is likely to reduce the overall density of rockfishes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".