MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2400659809 · doi:10.14288/1.0094600

A qualitative and quantitative assessment of seaweed decomposition in the Strait of Georgia

2010· article· en· W2400659809 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barry D. Smith

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueMarine and fisheries research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAlgaeOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcologyGeologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Appropriate sampling and experimental programs resulted in a qualitative and quantitative assessment of seaweed litter biomasses, decomposition rates and concomitant changes in nitrogen content; detritus biomass and decomposition rates; and faunal distribution patterns for the significant species within a successional seaweed community in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. A simulation model incorporating suitable data obtained from these sampling and experimental programs facilitated prediction of detritus formation rates, biomass, nitrogen content and the seasonal availability of detritus as a food resource for fauna. Soluble matter release rates from decomposing seaweed litter and its nitrogen content were also determined. Of the ca 43 taxa identified within the seaweed litter collections, Fucus distichvs L. (41%), Irldaea cordata (Turner) Bory (26%), Nereocystis 1uetkeana (Mertens) Postels and Ruprecht (27%), and Laminaria (4%) (L. saccharina (L.) Lamouroux and L. groenlandica Rosenvinge) accounted for more than 97% of total litter deposition. The mean peak summer biomass of all litter was ca 5 g ash-free dry weight (AFDW)/m² with this figure approaching zero during January and February. Litter distribution was patchy and there was sufficient evidence to conclude that most litter was retained, and underwent decomposition, in the immediate vicinity of its place of deposition. Litter decomposition experiments performed on the 10 most significant contributors to seaweed community structure indicated that decomposition of seaweed litter occurs rapidly compared to vascular plant litter. The time required for seaweed litter to disappear from 2 mm mesh litter bags ranged from six days, for the lamina of Nereocystis luetkeana, to ca 70 days, for Fucus distichus. Some similarity in decomposition rates was observed amongst species displaying taxonomic and/or morphologic affinities. Assessment of nitrogen content of decomposing seaweed litter revealed that nine of the 10 species assayed lost nitrogen less rapidly than total litter biomass. As determined by assaying microbial consumption of particulate material, the time required for detritus (particle size < 1 mm, dry) to fully decompose was short. Of the 10 species tested, Iridaea cordata detritus decomposed most rapidly at a rate of 5.7% per day while rates for Gigartina papillata (C. Agardh) J. Agardh, Laminaria groenlandica, Laminaria saccharina and Nereocystis luetkeana ranged from 2-4% per day. Data for the remaining species were less conclusive although all decomposed at rates less than one percent per day. Variation in specific decomposition rates was shown to be correlated with the structural composition of the detritus. Those species with a relatively small percentage of crude fibre as a component of their particulate fraction decomposed more rapidly than those species with a higher percentage of crude fibre. For the two most rapidly decomposing species, Iridaea cordata and Nereocystis luetkeana, a trend toward a more rapid decomposition rate as mean particle size decreased was evident. Natural detritus (particle size < 2 mm, wet) biomass accumulation within the study site peaked at ca 1.4 g AFDW/m² during the latter half of August 19 76. This value represents 1-5% of the quantity of detritus predicted to have been formed from seaweed litter alone and a lesser percentage of the total quantity of seaweed detritus formed. Exportation out of the seaweed zone is believed to be responsible for this discrepancy. The predicted rates of detritus formation and soluble matter release from decomposing seaweed litter peaked at ca 0.6 and 0.5 g AFDW/m²per day, respectively, in early September 1976 from a low near zero in February. In total, ca 56% of litter biomass formed detritus, the remainder being released as soluble matter. The mean nitrogen contents of the detritus formed and the soluble matter released were 2.48 ± 0.03% and 1.36 ± 0.03% of their dry weights, respectively. The annual contribution of seaweed litter biomass via detritus and soluble matter to local coastal waters is estimated to be in the range of 70-85 g C/m². Detritus formed from seaweed litter was determined to have a C:N ratio of 10-13:1, rendering it suitably nutritious for utilization by fauna as a food resource, however it could not be shown conclusively that the coincidence, en masse, of specific fauna and maximum detritus availability was a response to the availability of detritus as a food resource. The possibility of such a correlation is discussed with reference to two species of caprellids, Caprella alaskana Mayer and Metacaprella anomala Mayer, and the benthic gastropod Lacuna marmorata Dall.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,789
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,419

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,284
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetMarine and fisheries research→Travaux en français237 207→