4.7 Article

Below the Mesophotic

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-23067-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Smithsonian Institution's Consortium for Understanding and Sustaining a Biodiverse Planet
  2. Competitive Grants for the Promotion of Science
  3. NMNH Research Programs
  4. Herbert R. and Evelyn Axelrod Endowment Fund for systematic ichthyology
  5. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
  6. National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration [9102-12]
  7. Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation [1801]
  8. U.S. National Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesophotic coral ecosystems, which occur at depths of similar to 40 to 150 m, have received recent scientific attention as potential refugia for organisms inhabiting deteriorating shallow reefs. These ecosystems merit research in their own right, as they harbor both depth-generalist species and a distinctive reef-fish fauna. Reef ecosystems just below the mesophotic are globally underexplored, and the scant recent literature that mentions them often suggests that mesophotic ecosystems transition directly into those of the deep sea. Through submersible-based surveys in the Caribbean Sea, we amassed the most extensive database to date on reef-fish diversity between similar to 40 and 309 m at any single tropical location. Our data reveal a unique reef-fish assemblage living between similar to 130 and 309 m that, while taxonomically distinct from shallower faunas, shares strong evolutionary affinities with them. Lacking an existing name for this reef-faunal zone immediately below the mesophotic but above the deep aphotic, we propose rariphotic. Together with the altiphotic, proposed here for the shallowest reef-faunal zone, and the mesophotic, the rariphotic is part of a depth continuum of discrete faunal zones of tropical reef fishes, and perhaps of reef ecosystems in general, all of which warrant further study in light of global declines of shallow reefs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据