Can bacterivory sustain survival and growth in early juveniles of the bryozoan Bugula neritina, the polychaete Hydroides elegans and the barnacle Balanus amphitrite?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since phytoplankton abundance can constitute a highly unpredictable source of food for suspension feeders, we exarnined whether early juvenile Bugula neritina, Hydroides elegans, and Balanus amphitrite can use bacteria to achieve extended survival or growth when phytoplankton is scarce.At bacterial concentrations of -2 to 3.5 X 106 cells ml-', within the Tange of values observed in the field, early juvenile B. neritina and H. elegans were effective bactenvores, obtaining enough energy and nutrients from bacteria to sustain survival and growth.When provided with bacterial concentrations of -3 X 106 cells rnl-I, early juvenile B. neritina grew as rapidly as individuals provided with abundant phytoplankton, and completed the development of a second zooid slightly earlier.At bactenal concentrations of -1 X 106 ceils ml-', however, early juvenile B. neritina fared only siightly better in terms of growth and survival than in controls where bacterial concentrations were kept to a rninimum.Growth of early juvenile H. elegans at -2 X 106 bacteria ml-' was sigmficantly faster than in the controls, but was nevertheless slower than in the phytoplankton treatment.Finally, Balanus amphitn'te did not obtain any detectable benefit frorn bacteria, despite being provided with bacterial concentrations of -9 X 106 cells rnl-I, well in excess of values observed in the field.These results indicate that early juveniles of some species are effective at using bacteria as an alternative food source, and may use bacten a as a food Supplement or even as a sole source of particulate matter.if necessary, to Support survival and growth.Starvation may therefore be a minor natural cause of mortaiity, if a cause at ail, in early juvenile H. elegans and B. neritißa which can use bacteria and possibly other alternative food sources when phytoplankton is scarce.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".