Habitat Suitability Modeling to Inform Seascape Connectivity Conservation and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal habitats have experienced significant degradation and fragmentation in recent decades under the strain of interacting ecosystem stressors. To maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, coastal managers and restoration practitioners face the urgent tasks of identifying priority areas for protection and developing innovative, scalable approaches to habitat restoration. Facilitating these efforts are models of seascape connectivity, which represent ecological linkages across heterogeneous marine environments by predicting species-specific dispersal between suitable habitat patches. However, defining the suitable habitat patches and migratory pathways required to construct ecologically realistic connectivity models remains challenging. Focusing on two reef-associated fish species of the Florida Keys, United States of America (USA), we compared two methods for constructing species- and life stage-specific spatial models of habitat suitability—penalized logistic regression and maximum entropy (MaxEnt). The goal of the model comparison was to identify the modeling algorithm that produced the most realistic and detailed products for use in subsequent connectivity assessments. Regardless of species, MaxEnt’s ability to distinguish between suitable and unsuitable locations exceeded that of the penalized regressions. Furthermore, MaxEnt’s habitat suitability predictions more closely aligned with the known ecology of the study species, revealing the environmental conditions and spatial patterns that best support each species across the seascape, with implications for predicting connectivity pathways and the distribution of key ecological processes. Our research demonstrates MaxEnt’s promise as a scalable, species-specific, and spatially explicit tool for informing models of seascape connectivity and guiding coastal conservation efforts.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".