MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Foundation Species

2023· review· en· W4386532737 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Wernberg, Mads S. Thomsen, Julia K. Baum, Melanie J. Bishop, John F. Bruno, Melinda A. Coleman, Karen Filbee‐Dexter, Karine Gagnon, Qiang He, Daniel Murdiyarso, Kerrylee Rogers, Brian R. Silliman, Dan A. Smale, Samuel Starko, Mathew A. Vanderklift

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Marine Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation speciesClimate changeEcologyEcosystemBiodiversityMarine ecosystemHabitatOverfishingEcosystem servicesEcosystem engineerSalt marshBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine foundation species are the biotic basis for many of the world's coastal ecosystems, providing structural habitat, food, and protection for myriad plants and animals as well as many ecosystem services. However, climate change poses a significant threat to foundation species and the ecosystems they support. We review the impacts of climate change on common marine foundation species, including corals, kelps, seagrasses, salt marsh plants, mangroves, and bivalves. It is evident that marine foundation species have already been severely impacted by several climate change drivers, often through interactive effects with other human stressors, such as pollution, overfishing, and coastal development. Despite considerable variation in geographical, environmental, and ecological contexts, direct and indirect effects of gradual warming and subsequent heatwaves have emerged as the most pervasive drivers of observed impact and potent threat across all marine foundation species, but effects from sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increased storminess are expected to increase. Documented impacts include changes in the genetic structures, physiology, abundance, and distribution of the foundation species themselves and changes to their interactions with other species, with flow-on effects to associated communities, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning. We discuss strategies to support marine foundation species into the Anthropocene, in order to increase their resilience and ensure the persistence of the ecosystem services they provide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations244
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207