MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022265882 · doi:10.1111/ecog.04979

Geographical differences in habitat relationships of cetaceans across an ocean basin

2020· article· en· W3022265882 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Mannocci, Jason J. Roberts, Eric J. Pedersen, Patrick N. Halpin

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSoutheast Fisheries Science CenterNortheast Fisheries Science CenterU.S. Navy
KeywordsStructural basinHabitatCetaceaGeneralized additive modelTaxonPorpoiseGeographyGeologyPhysical geographyOceanographyEcologyBiologyPaleontologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distributions of highly mobile marine species such as cetaceans are increasingly modeled at basin scale by combining data from multiple regions. However, these basin‐wide models often overlook geographical variations in species habitat relationships between regions. We tested for geographical variations in habitat relationships for a suite of cetacean taxa between the two sides of the North Atlantic basin. Using cetacean visual survey data and remote sensing data from the western and eastern basin in summer, we related the probability of presence of twelve cetacean taxa from three guilds to seafloor depth, sea surface temperature and primary productivity. In a generalized additive model framework, we fitted 1) basin‐wide (BW) models, assuming a single global relationship, 2) region‐specific intercepts (RI) models, assuming relationships with the same shape in both regions, but allowing a region‐specific intercept and 3) region‐specific shape (RS) models, assuming relationships with different shapes between regions. RS models mostly yielded significantly better fits than BW models, indicating cetacean occurrences were better modeled with region‐specific than with global relationships. The better fits of RS models over RI models further provided statistical evidence for differences in the shapes of region‐specific relationships. Baleen whales showed striking differences in both the shapes of relationships and their mean presence probabilities between regions. Deep diving whales and delphinoids showed contrasting relationships between regions with few exceptions (e.g. non‐statistically different shapes of region‐specific relationships for harbor porpoise and beaked whales with depth). Our findings stress the need to account for geographical differences in habitat relationships between regions when modeling species distributions from combined data at the basin scale. Our proposed hypotheses offer a roadmap for understanding why habitat relationships may geographically vary in cetaceans and other highly mobile marine species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207