Patterns of functional diversity along latitudinal gradients of species richness in eleven fish families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim As we enter an era of major biodiversity shifts, understanding large‐scale biodiversity patterns has become crucial for ecological and conservation purposes. Often, conservation priorities are based on concepts derived largely from species richness, yet recent work shows that different facets of biodiversity are also crucial for proper ecosystem continuity, function and services. One facet of biodiversity increasingly relevant to conservation is functional diversity. Here, we aim to improve our understanding of large‐scale patterns of biodiversity by testing the hypothesis that species richness can also accurately estimate functional diversity along the latitudinal gradient of species richness in fish. Location Marine environments. Time period Contemporary. Major taxa studied Eight hundred and forty‐two species within 11 fish families: Acanthuridae, Blenniidae, Chaetodontidae, Gobiidae, Labridae, Lutjanidae, Pleuronectidae, Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Scombridae and Sparidae. Methods Using geometric morphometrics to calculate morphological diversity, a proxy for functional diversity, we estimated the expected functional diversity for a given number of species and compared it with the observed functional diversity in fish families along latitudes. We then fitted a broken‐stick regression model with estimates of functional diversity over absolute degree of latitudes to locate latitudes where significant shifts in functional diversity occur. Results We found that species richness typically over‐ or underestimated functional diversity along the latitudinal gradient of species richness in the evaluated fishes. We also showed that for most families investigated, there was a pattern of stable functional diversity from the equator through the tropics that shifted, with a mean inflection point occurring at absolute latitude 31.7 ± 10.1°. We suggest that this pattern might be linked to changes in environmental factors such as global temperature and/or habitat availability beyond tropical latitudes; however, these concepts require more study. Main conclusions This analysis shows the importance of considering functional diversity further, in combination with other biodiversity metrics, when developing conservation priorities and policies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".