Historical versus contemporary measures of seaweed biodiversity in the Bay of Fundy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic changes in many components of the Bay of Fundy biota have recently been reported, however a detailed assessment of benthic seaweed biodiversity has not been performed since the late 1970s. Here, we summarize 7 years (2000–2006) of temporal and spatial variation in species richness, composition, and percent cover of intertidal seaweeds in the outer Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, Canada. In doing so, we provide up-to-date baseline records using repeatable and well-documented protocols. We document the presence of 72 species of seaweeds across four sites, and demonstrate that the biota at one of our sites is indicative of a degraded assemblage: large patches of unutilized substrate, low algal richness and abundance, with assemblages composed of hardy algal species and grazing and filter feeding invertebrates. Additionally, we compare these contemporary data with historical presence–absence records compiled from herbarium collections (1954–1978) and site surveys from 1963 to 1964 and 1978. Comparisons reveal 16 species not relocated in contemporary surveys. However, conclusions of anthropogenic changes in seaweed biodiversity are difficult to assess in the absence of high quality baseline information, and seaweeds historically found but not relocated in current sampling are easily misidentified, subtidal, or rare. We discuss the nature and value of baseline data, and make suggestions for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".