Hydrothermal vent fauna of the western Pacific Ocean: Distribution patterns and biogeographic networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Deep‐sea hydrothermal vent habitats support a low‐diversity fauna in which most species are unique to the ecosystem. To inform conservation planning around this vulnerable marine ecosystem, we examine species distributions over a wide area to assess the underlying beta‐diversity components and to examine biogeographic patterns. We assess the concept of a highly connected fauna that would repopulate areas of local extinction from distal locations. Location Western Pacific Ocean from Japan to New Zealand. Methods We assemble a database of 295 confirmed species records for 11 western Pacific vent systems. The SET beta‐diversity framework supports query of the distribution of pairwise pattern components in comparisons among vent systems. We build a network based in graph theory to examine connectivity among vent systems based on shared species similarity. A bipartite network revealed the relative role of each species in linkages among vent system nodes. We assess the importance of sampling bias and distance between systems. Results Overall, two‐thirds of the taxa are restricted to a single basin or arc. The Mariana Trough system has the highest corrected weighted endemism for vent‐specific species, followed by that of the Okinawa Trough. Species replacement is the dominant feature of beta‐diversity. Eleven vent systems form seven network modules with stronger connectivity in the Southwest than Northwest Pacific. The Manus Basin vent system emerges as a network ‘hub’ reflecting its central geographic near the equator. Main Conclusion Two western Pacific biogeographic provinces arise, north and south of the equator that few species transcend. Local and regional conservation plans should consider the low network connectivity and high system endemism in management of hydrothermal vent ecosystems in the event of seabed mining. Species recruitment is unlikely to transcend vent system boundaries. We identify Okinawa Trough, Mariana Trough, Manus Basin, Feni‐Tabar Arc and Kermadec Arc for development of conservation plans that initiate or expand 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".