Seasonal differences in the effects of oscillatory and uni‐directional flow on the growth and nitrate‐uptake rates of juvenile <i>Laminaria digitata</i> (Phaeophyceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of oscillatory versus unidirectional flow on the growth and nitrate-uptake rates of juvenile kelp, Laminaria digitata, was determined seasonally in experimental treatments that simulated as closely as possible natural environmental conditions. In winter, regardless of flow condition (oscillatory and unidirectional) or water velocity, no influence of water motion was observed on the growth rate of L. digitata. In summer, when ambient nitrate concentrations were low, increased water motion enhanced macroalgal growth, which is assumed to be related to an increase in the rate of supply of nutrients to the blade surface. Nitrate-uptake rates were significantly influenced by water motion and season. Lowest nitrate-uptake rates were observed for velocities <5 cm · s(-1) and nitrate-uptake rates increased by 20%-50% under oscillatory motion compared to unidirectional flow at the same average speed. These data further suggested that the diffusion boundary layer played a significant role in influencing nitrate-uptake rates. However, while increased nitrate-uptake in oscillatory flow was clear, this was not reflected in growth rates and further work is required to understand the disconnection of nitrate-uptake and growth by L. digitata in oscillatory flow. The data obtained support those from related field-based studies, which suggest that in summer, when insufficient nitrogen is available in the water to saturate metabolic demand, the growth rate of kelps will be influenced by water motion restricting mass transfer of nitrogen.
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 | 0.001 | 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".