MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979315430 · doi:10.3354/meps200167

Variable and complementary effects of herbivores on different life stages of bloom-forming macroalgae

2000· article· en· W1979315430 on OpenAlexaff
Heike K. Lotze, Boris Worm

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Ecology Progress Series · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and Technology
KeywordsBiologyHerbivoreIsopodaEcologyBloomAlgaeLittorinaGastropodaBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased nutrient loading favors macroalgal blooms in eutrophied coastal ecosystems.The main counteracting factor on this bottom-up support is top-down control by consumers.We asked (1) whether herbivore control on 2 bloom-forming macroalgae in the Baltic Sea varies between different algal life stages, (2) whether herbivores selectively feed on Enterornorpha spp.(Chlorophyceae) thereby supporting dominance of PiZayella littoralis (Phaeophyceae), and (3) whether various herbivore species differ in their effects.In comparative field and laboratory experiments, we analyzed herbivore pressure and selectivity on germling density and adult thalli of Enterornorpha spp.and P. littoralis.In the field, herbivores reduced macroalgal recruitment by 80 % within 14 d indicating strong herbivore control at early life stages.Recruits of Enterornorpha spp.were significantly preferred over P, littoralis Adult thalli of both algae showed similar growth rates, but grazing rates were significantly higher on Enterornorpha spp.In laboratory experiments, Idotea chelipes (lsopoda), Littorina saxatilis (Gastropoda) and Garnmarus locusta (Amphipoda) strongly reduced germling density, whereas effects of L. littorea were weak.I. chelipes and L. saxatilis significantly preferred gerrnlings of Enterornorpha spp.over P. littoralis.I. chelipes had strong effects on adult Enterornorpha spp.but not on P, littoralis.The effects of G. locusta and L. littorea on both adult algae were smaller and not selective, and L. saxatilis did not feed on adults at all.Different herbivore feeding modes are discussed.We conclude that strong and selective herbivory on juvenile and adult Enterornorpha spp.favors dominance of P. littoralis in the Baltic.An effective control of macroalgal blooms in eutrophied areas can be supported by sustaining high herbivore density and species richness considering the variable and complementary effects of different herbivore species on different algal life stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Ecology Progress SeriesSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207