Relationships between juvenile fish assemblages and the physical features of bays along the Atlantic coast of mainland Nova Scotia, with implications for coastal marine protected areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine Protected Area (MPA) sites are traditionally selected to protect individual species, or areas with scenic views. Selecting sites in an ecologically defensible manner reduces the arbitrariness in these decisions, and allows representative and distinctive areas to be identified and included in MPA networks. To further coastal conservation planning, this study examined coastal fish assemblages and the physical features of nearshore ecosystems to determine relationships between geophysical characteristics and biotic communities. Twenty bays were sampled for juvenile fish along the coast of mainland Nova Scotia, from Chedabucto Bay to the Bay of Fundy. Using a beach seine, 19,505 individual fish, representing 35 unique species, were caught during two field seasons (June – October 2005, June – September 2006). Based on physiographic features and environmental variables, bays sorted into well-defined bay types. Results indicated that the fish assemblages did not relate to these bay types, nor to geographic location. There were significant correlations between fish species and substrate type, in particular sediment particle size. Species-accumulation relationships discovered that a set of small bays, equal in shoreline length to a large bay, contained more fish species (26–35) than the larger bays (14–17 species). A minimum shoreline length of 3.37 km is required within a small bay to encompass all 35 species caught in this study. This study lays the foundation for the environmentally justifiable selection of representative coastal zone MPAs along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".