Zachary A. Siders, Lauren B. Trotta, William Patrone, Fabio P. Caltabellotta, Katherine B. Loesser, Benjamin Baiser
{"title":"Predicting time-at-depth weighted biodiversity patterns for sharks of the North Pacific","authors":"Zachary A. Siders, Lauren B. Trotta, William Patrone, Fabio P. Caltabellotta, Katherine B. Loesser, Benjamin Baiser","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Depth is a fundamental and universal driver of ocean biogeography but it is unclear how the biodiversity patterns of larger, more mobile organisms change as a function of depth. Here, we developed a predictive biogeography model to explore how information of mobile species' depth preferences influence biodiversity patterns. We employed a literature review to collate shark biotelemetry studies and used open-access tools to extract 283 total records from 119 studies of 1133 sharks from 35 species. We then matched field guide reported depth ranges and IUCN habitat associations for each shark species to use as covariates in a hurdle variant of ensemble random forests. We successfully fit this model (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.63) to the noisy time-at-depth observations and used it to predict the time budgets of the northeast Pacific shark regional pool (n = 52). We then assessed how occurrence diversity patterns, informed by minimum and maximum depth of occurrence, compared to time-at-depth weighted diversity patterns. Time-at-depth weighted richness was highest between 0 and 25 m and at the upper part of the mesopelagic zone, 250–300 m; resulting in little similarity to common depth or elevational biodiversity patterns while the occurrence-weighted richness pattern was similar to the ‘low-plateau' pattern. In the phylogenetic and functional dimensions of biodiversity and over three different distance metrics, we found strong but haphazard differences between the occurrence- and time-at-depth weighted biodiversity patterns. The strong influence of time budgets on biodiversity led us to conclude that occurrence data alone are likely insufficient or even misleading in terms of the depth-driven biogeographic patterns in the open ocean. Utilizing the increasing amount of time-at-depth information from biotelemetry studies in predictive biogeographic models may be critical for capturing the preferences of pelagic, mobile species occupying the largest biome on the planet.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07249","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Depth is a fundamental and universal driver of ocean biogeography but it is unclear how the biodiversity patterns of larger, more mobile organisms change as a function of depth. Here, we developed a predictive biogeography model to explore how information of mobile species' depth preferences influence biodiversity patterns. We employed a literature review to collate shark biotelemetry studies and used open-access tools to extract 283 total records from 119 studies of 1133 sharks from 35 species. We then matched field guide reported depth ranges and IUCN habitat associations for each shark species to use as covariates in a hurdle variant of ensemble random forests. We successfully fit this model (R2 = 0.63) to the noisy time-at-depth observations and used it to predict the time budgets of the northeast Pacific shark regional pool (n = 52). We then assessed how occurrence diversity patterns, informed by minimum and maximum depth of occurrence, compared to time-at-depth weighted diversity patterns. Time-at-depth weighted richness was highest between 0 and 25 m and at the upper part of the mesopelagic zone, 250–300 m; resulting in little similarity to common depth or elevational biodiversity patterns while the occurrence-weighted richness pattern was similar to the ‘low-plateau' pattern. In the phylogenetic and functional dimensions of biodiversity and over three different distance metrics, we found strong but haphazard differences between the occurrence- and time-at-depth weighted biodiversity patterns. The strong influence of time budgets on biodiversity led us to conclude that occurrence data alone are likely insufficient or even misleading in terms of the depth-driven biogeographic patterns in the open ocean. Utilizing the increasing amount of time-at-depth information from biotelemetry studies in predictive biogeographic models may be critical for capturing the preferences of pelagic, mobile species occupying the largest biome on the planet.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.