MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298005057 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.988858

Fine-scale ensemble species distribution modeling of eelgrass (Zostera marina) to inform nearshore conservation planning and habitat management

2022· article· en· W4298005057 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John O’Brien, Melisa C. Wong, Ryan R. E. Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsZostera marinaHabitatBathymetryEnvironmental scienceSpecies distributionOceanographyMarine spatial planningSubstrate (aquarium)FisheryEcologySeagrassBiologyEnvironmental resource managementGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baseline data on the distribution and extent of biogenic habitat-forming species at a high spatial resolution are essential to inform habitat management strategies, preserve ecosystem integrity, and achieve effective conservation objectives in the nearshore. Model-based approaches to map suitable habitat for these species are a key tool to address this need, filling in gaps where observations are otherwise unavailable and remote sensing methods are limited by turbid waters or cannot be applied at scale. We developed a high resolution (35 m) ensemble species distribution model to predict the distribution of eelgrass ( Zostera marina ) along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, Canada where the observational coverage of eelgrass occurrence is sparse and nearshore waters are optically complex. Our ensemble model was derived as a performance-weighted average prediction of 7 different modeling methods fit to 6 physical predictors (substrate type, depth, wave exposure, slope, and two bathymetric position indices) and evaluated with a 5-fold spatially-blocked cross-validation procedure. The ensemble model showed moderate predictive performance (Area Under the Receiver-Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) = 0.803 ± 0.061, True Skill Statistic (TSS) = 0.531 ± 0.100; mean ± SD), high sensitivity (92.0 ± 4.5), and offered some improvement over individual models. Substrate type, depth, and relative wave exposure were the most influential predictors associated with eelgrass occurrence, where the highest probabilities were associated with sandy and sandy-mud sediments, depths ranging 0 m – 4 m, and low to intermediate wave exposure. Within our study region, we predicted a total extent of suitable eelgrass habitat of 38,130 ha. We found suitable habitat was particularly extensive within the long narrow inlets and extensive shallow flats of the South Shore, Eastern Shore, and Bras d’Or Lakes. We also identified substantial overlap of eelgrass habitat with previously identified Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas that guide regional conservation planning while also highlighting areas of greater prediction uncertainty arising from disagreement among modeling methods. By offering improved sensitivity and insights into the fine-scale regional distribution of a habitat-forming species with associated uncertainties, our ensemble-based modeling approach provides improved support to numerous nearshore applications including conservation planning and restoration, marine spatial and emergency response planning, environmental impact assessments, and fish habitat protection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207