Should I stay, or should I go: Anthropogenic noises disrupt early recruitment of subarctic invertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coastal subarctic systems are inhabited by bivalve and gastropods, which due to their lifecycle and longevity are reliable indicators of ecological alterations in the environment. Recent laboratory studies have shown that young life stages of invertebrates perceive natural sounds, and their settlement, behavior, and fitness could be altered by anthropogenic noise. Through a field study conducted on two sites differing by their noise pollution level (pristine [PS] or anthropized [AS]), we tested whether the distances (from 25 to 890 m) of anthropogenic noises might affect the diversity and early recruitment of multiple species in pristine and anthropized sites using artificial collectors moored on transects. Overall, environmental conditions (except sound levels) were homogeneous through the transects. The acoustic scenario differed between the PS (vessel noise, 132–138 dB re 1 μPa 2 s) and AS (mix of pile driving and vessel noise, >140 dB re 1 μPa 2 s) sites, with the AS site experiencing a higher level of sound exposure than the PS site. Species richness fluctuated with distance from the noise, but only in the anthropized site. Regarding species diversity and evenness, they varied with distance and month at both sites, displaying a clear negative effect of anthropogenic noises and shifting species composition. Specific early recruitment responses were observed for each species to anthropogenic noise, but with a different pattern for each site due to variations in sound pressure and exposure levels. The findings of our field study document, for the first time, that controlled anthropogenic noise emission leads to ecological shifts in community structure and population metrics of benthopelagic marine invertebrate species. To avoid disruptions in community structure and recruitment, we recommend that a noise threshold level for invertebrates should be below 140 dB re 1 μPa 2 s.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".