Mapping queen snapper (Etelis oculatus) suitable habitat in Puerto Rico using ensemble species distribution modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queen snapper (Etelis oculatus) is of interest from an ecological and management perspective as it is the second most landed finfish species (by total pounds) as determined by Puerto Rico commercial landings (2010-2019). As fishing activities progressively expand into deeper waters, it is critical to gather data on deep-sea fish populations to identify essential fish habitats (EFH). In the U.S. Caribbean, the critically data-deficient nature of this species has made this challenging. We investigated the use of ensemble species distribution modeling (ESDM) to predict queen snapper distribution along the coast of Puerto Rico. Using occurrence data and terrain attributes derived from bathymetric datasets at different resolutions, we developed species distribution models unique to each sampling region (west, northeast, and southeast Puerto Rico) using seven different algorithms. Then, we developed ESDM models to analyze fish distribution using the highest-performing algorithms for each region. Model performance was evaluated for each ensemble model, with all depicting 'excellent' predictive capability (AUC > 0.8). Additionally, all ensemble models depicted 'substantial agreement' (Kappa > 0.7). We then used the models in combination with existing knowledge of the species' range to produce binary maps of potential queen snapper distributions. Variable importance differed across spatial resolutions of 30 m (west region) and 8 m (northeast and southeast region); however, bathymetry was consistently one of the best predictors of queen snapper suitable habitat. Positive detections showed strong regional patterns localized around large bathymetric features, such as seamounts and ridges. Despite the data-deficient condition of queen snapper population dynamics, these models will help facilitate the analysis of their spatial distribution and habitat preferences at different spatial scales. Our results therefore provide a first step in designing long-term monitoring programs targeting queen snapper, and determining EFH and the general distribution of this species in Puerto Rico.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".