Hard-bottom habitats support commercially important fish species: a systematic review for the North Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hard-bottom habitats span a range of natural substrates ( e.g. , boulders, cobble) and artificial habitats ( e.g. , the base of wind turbines, oil platforms). These hard-bottom habitats can provide a variety of ecosystem services, ranging from the enhancement of fish biomass and production to providing erosion control. Management decisions regarding the construction or fate of hard-bottom habitats require information on the ecological functions of these habitats, particularly for species targeted in ecosystem-based fisheries management. This study provides a systematic review of the relationships of various hard-bottom habitats to individual commercially harvested species that are managed jointly across the Atlantic by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). We systemically reviewed peer-reviewed publications on hard-bottom habitats including both natural and artificial reefs, after applying various exclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted on near-shore hard-bottom habitats, and habitat importance varied according to fish species and region. We quantified the frequency with which studies demonstrate that natural and artificial hard-bottom habitats function as spawning grounds, settlement and nursery areas, and foraging grounds, as well as provide stepping-stones during migration, or new home ranges. Hard-bottom habitats generally support higher fish densities than surrounding habitat types, although not all fish species benefit from hard-bottom habitats. Of the commercially important species, cod ( Gadus morhua ) was the most frequently studied species, with enhanced biomass, density, feeding, and spawning on hard-bottom habitats compared to unstructured habitats. Moreover, hard-bottom habitats appear to be of particular importance for spawning of herring ( Clupea harengus ). Collectively, data indicate that loss of hard-bottom habitats may translate into less-favourable conditions for spawning and biomass of diverse commercial species, including cod and herring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".