Fishing damage to cloud sponges may lead to losses in associated fish communities in Pacific Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass sponge gardens are important biogenic habitats that support fish communities in Pacific Canada. However, glass sponges (class Hexactinellida) are delicate and susceptible to damage from fishing gear such as downriggers. In this study we document changes in a fish community before -and after damage from a presumed fishing event that resulted in a reduction of 58.9% of the available sponge habitat in a small cloud sponge garden in British Columbia. This habitat loss coincided with a decline of 76.9% of the relative abundance of rockfish, an economically important group of fishes, at the garden. This decline was particularly pronounced in small size classes with the disappearance of juvenile rockfish after the sponge loss. Although based on a single site, this is the first documentation of how anthropogenic damage in a sponge aggregation may impact the associated fish community. Damage from fishing gear is likely most pronounced in small sponge aggregations, like nearshore gardens, where a single event may result in a disproportionately large loss of available fish habitat. Slow regrowth of sponges suggests the habitat availability may be permanently altered at these sites and can coincide with shifts in the localized fish community that may be long lasting on a local scale. Currently sponge gardens do not have any direct spatial protections in the Pacific Northwest, and this work highlights the importance of considering them in future protection initiatives.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".