ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Structured machine learning modeling to support conservation of deep-sea benthic biodiversity.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structured machine learning modeling to support conservation of deep-sea benthic biodiversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biodiversity monitoring programs need to deliver accurate, timely, and actionable predictions. To establish a predictive monitoring program for deep-sea benthos of the Santos Basin, Brazil, we developed a two-stage structured model that allowed comparison of biodiversity predictions obtained from environmental simulations (2M-Sim). We also modeled the environmental variables as a function of spatial and temporal variables and compared this model's predictions with predictions obtained from real environmental data (2M). We built unstructured models (1M) as references to evaluate whether the proposed structured approach was reliable. We expected no significant differences between 1M and 2M or between 2M and 2M-Sim. Data were obtained from 100 stations at depths of 25-2400 m during two surveys (2019 and 2021). In our model framework, we used 12 benthic macro- and meiofaunal variables, 44 sediment and water column environmental variables, and four spatial and temporal variables. We applied a random forest algorithm to the structured and unstructured models. All comparisons were performed with 20% of the dataset set aside for validation. The average accuracy was 72%, 69%, and 68% for the 1M, 2M, and 2M-Sim models, respectively. Accuracies of 2M ranged from 38% to 84% and were generally higher for macrofauna. The observed accuracy loss from 1M to 2M (3%) and from 2M to 2M-Sim (1%) was not significant for any biodiversity variable. The 2M model identified 30 significant environmental variables; bottom water parameters and sedimentary phytopigment and carbonate concentrations were the best predictors. Our approach supports biodiversity conservation by optimizing data needs and future sampling and by guiding data-driven management decisions for benthic biodiversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.