Data from: Shortspine thornyhead and rockfish (Scorpaenidae) distribution in response to substratum, biogenic structures and trawling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learmonth Bank in northern British Columbia sustains an active trawl fishery that returns large bycatches of deep-sea sponges and corals. To examine effects of biogenic structures on the distribution of fish, we examined nearly 30 km of high-definition imagery from a remotely operated vehicle and documented locations of 2770 scorpaenid fish. The 2 local genera have similar abundances, averaging about 1.2 individuals 100 m–2, but have different spatial abundance patterns: shortspine thornyhead Sebastolobus alascanus are randomly distributed on featureless substrata and their abundance increases with depth. Rockfish Sebastes spp. associate with higher seafloor relief nonrandomly and select for sponges and corals over the inert substrata alone; 95% of the rockfish occurred on 27% of the seafloor surveyed. Sponges (Demospongia and Hexactinellida) were abundant on the bedrock and boulders of the bank and adjacent moraine and covered 30 to 55% of the seafloor compared with 1% of the sediment and aggregates of the surrounding basin. The majority of rockfish (80%) occurred with sponges ≥50 cm in height, and even beds of short sponges attracted 4 times as many rockfish than did substrata with no large epifauna. While over half of primnoid corals over 30 cm tall had associated rockfish, less than 2% of the seafloor had large coral, and small coral had no associated rockfish. On the adjacent seafloor with past trawling activity, Primnoa pacifica was 13 times less abundant, and large corals and sponges were rare. Thornyhead abundance doubled but rockfish had a 3-fold reduction in numbers. Our study indicates that degradation of biogenic structures is a long-term detriment to rockfish species and, although the mechanism remains unclear, our data suggest it occurs through the destruction of a habitat that is more effective for shelter than rough inert seafloor.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".