Causal drivers of climate‐mediated coral reef regime shifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate‐induced coral bleaching events are a leading threat to coral reef ecosystems and can result in coral–macroalgal regime shifts that are difficult to reverse. It is unclear how different factors causally influence regime shift or recovery trajectories after a bleaching event. Here, we use structural causal modeling (SCM) and its application of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to determine how key factors affect regime shift versus recovery potential across coral reefs in Seychelles, which were severely impacted by bleaching events in 1998 and 2016. Our causal models reveal additional causal drivers of regime shifts, including initial macroalgal cover, wave exposure, and branching coral cover. We also find that reduced depth and structural complexity and increased nutrients increase the likelihood of regime shifting. Further, we use a DAG‐informed predictive model to show how recovering reefs are expected to change after a recent 2016 bleaching event, suggesting that three out of 12 recovering reefs are expected to regime shift given their predisturbance conditions. Collectively, our results provide the first causally grounded analysis of how different factors influence postbleaching regime shift versus recovery potential on coral reefs. More broadly, SCM stands apart from previous observational analysis and provides a strong framework for causal inference across other observational ecological studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".