Species richness in North Atlantic fish: Process concealed by pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Previous analyses of marine fish species richness based on presence‐absence data have shown changes with latitude and average species size, but little is known about the underlying processes. To elucidate these processes we use metabolic, neutral and descriptive statistical models to analyse how richness responds to maximum species length, fish abundance, temperature, primary production, depth, latitude and longitude, while accounting for differences in species catchability, sampling effort and mesh size. Data Results from 53,382 bottom trawl hauls representing 50 fish assemblages. Location The northern Atlantic from Nova Scotia to Guinea. Time period 1977–2013. Methods A descriptive generalized additive model was used to identify functional relationships between species richness and potential drivers, after which nonlinear estimation techniques were used to parameterize: (a) a ‘best’ fitting model of species richness built on the functional relationships, (b) an environmental model based on latitude, longitude and depth, and mechanistic models based on (c) metabolic and (d) neutral theory. Results In the ‘best’ model the number of species observed is a lognormal function of maximum species length. It increases significantly with temperature, primary production, sampling effort, and abundance, and declines with depth and, for small species, with the mesh size in the trawl. The ‘best’ model explains close to 90% of the deviance and the neutral, metabolic and environmental models 89%. In all four models, maximum species length and either temperature or latitude account for more than half of the deviance explained. Main conclusions The two mechanistic models explain the patterns in demersal fish species richness in the northern Atlantic almost equally well. A better understanding of the underlying drivers is likely to require development of dynamic mechanistic models of richness and size evolution, fit not only to extant distributions, but also to historical environmental conditions and to past speciation and extinction rates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".