Aquatic biodiversity enhances multiple nutritional benefits to humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanity depends on biodiversity for health, well-being, and a stable environment. As biodiversity change accelerates, we are still discovering the full range of consequences for human health and well-being. Here, we test the hypothesis-derived from biodiversity-ecosystem functioning theory-that species richness and ecological functional diversity allow seafood diets to fulfill multiple nutritional requirements, a condition necessary for human health. We analyzed a newly synthesized dataset of 7,245 observations of nutrient and contaminant concentrations in 801 aquatic animal taxa and found that species with different ecological traits have distinct and complementary micronutrient profiles but little difference in protein content. The same complementarity mechanisms that generate positive biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in terrestrial ecosystems also operate in seafood assemblages, allowing more diverse diets to yield increased nutritional benefits independent of total biomass consumed. Notably, nutritional metrics that capture multiple micronutrients and fatty acids essential for human well-being depend more strongly on biodiversity than common ecological measures of function such as productivity, typically reported for grasslands and forests. Furthermore, we found that increasing species richness did not increase the amount of protein in seafood diets and also increased concentrations of toxic metal contaminants in the diet. Seafood-derived micronutrients and fatty acids are important for human health and are a pillar of global food and nutrition security. By drawing upon biodiversity-ecosystem functioning theory, we demonstrate that ecological concepts of biodiversity can deepen our understanding of nature's benefits to people and unite sustainability goals for biodiversity and human well-being.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".