Marine epibenthic functional diversity on Flemish Cap (north‐west Atlantic)—Identifying trait responses to the environment and mapping ecosystem functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To characterize the functional diversity and selected ecological functions of marine epibenthic invertebrate communities at the ecosystem scale and to evaluate the relative contributions of environmental filtering, including bottom‐contact fishing, and competitive interactions to benthic community assembly. Location Flemish Cap, an ecosystem production unit and fishing bank in the high seas of the north‐west Atlantic Ocean. Methods Through the use of Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities (HMSC), we have explored seven community response traits to the environment applied to 105 epibenthic species and evaluated the influence of such traits on the community assembly processes. Assumed bioturbation, nutrient cycling and habitat provision functions, linked to individual or a combination of biological traits, were mapped using random forest modelling. Results Functional richness within benthic communities reached an asymptote for trawl sets with roughly more than 30 species. Assemblages on top of the Flemish Cap (<500 m depth) were characterized by higher biomass of small‐ and medium‐sized species with short life spans, whereas large species with longer life spans and broadcast spawners were dominant in the deeper assemblages (500–1,500 m depth). The amount of variation explained by the species’ responses to the covariates mediated by the traits was relatively high (25%) indicating their relevance to community assembly. Community‐weighted mean trait values changed with depth and physical oceanographic variables, indicating that environmental filtering was occurring. Interspecific interactions, as inferred from the random effect at the sample level, accounted for 16.3% of the variance in the model, while fishing effort explained only 5.2% of the variance but conferred strong negative impacts for most species. Main conclusions Our results suggest that while bottom‐contact fishing impacts have an effect on functional diversity, changes to the physical oceanography of the system are likely to have more profound impacts. The maps of benthic functioning can aid assessments of ecosystem impacts of fishing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".