No effects of abiotic and anthropogenic factors on reef-associated neonate shark abundance within a shark nursery-area system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Coastal habitats function as shark nursery areas; however, coastal habitats can experience extreme variation in abiotic conditions and are susceptible to human disturbances. Aims Drivers of abundance were tested within a shark nursery-area system in two populations of reef-associated neonate sharks, namely, blacktip reef sharks (Carcharhinus melanopterus) and sicklefin lemon sharks (Negaprion acutidens). Methods Catch data from a fisheries-independent gill-net survey (n = 90 sets from October 2018 to March 2019) at 10 sites around Moorea, French Polynesia, were used to test for associations between shark abundance and abiotic conditions (temperature, oxygen, pH, salinity, lunar phase and depth). Historical levels of fin-fish fishing effort, trampling (i.e. human movement through habitat), and coastal artificialisation (i.e. walls and embankments) estimated for each site were used to test for anthropogenic effects on shark abundance. Key results There were no effects of any abiotic or anthropogenic factor on abundance of either species. Conclusions Previous work corroborates our findings by demonstrating neonate sharks’ physiological tolerance to extreme abiotic conditions and high survival in response to anthropogenic stressors. Alternatively, populations are already degraded from decades of coastal development. Implications These data can aid in predicting the use of coastal habitats as shark nursery areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".