Effects of mechanical experimental disturbance on aspects of colony responses, reproduction, and regeneration in the cold-water octocoral <i>Gersemia rubiformis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responses of delicate soft corals to mechanical injuries inflicted by bottom fishing (e.g., trawling, dredging) are not known. Effects of mechanical disturbance on the soft coral Gersemia rubiformis (Ehrenberg, 1834) were examined by experimentally simulating disturbances caused by bottom fishing. Eight colonies were collected in the Bay of Fundy and maintained in individual aquaria. Four colonies were rolled over and crushed 10 times, once every 2 weeks over 2 months, while four were left undisturbed. Colony response was recorded both 4 days and 1 week post disturbance in both treatments by assigning states reflecting colony and polyp physiognomy. Proportions of corals in different states did not differ between treatments over time. Crushing immediately induced complete colony retraction and daughter colonies were produced in crushed corals. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA genetic markers demonstrated that daughter colonies were sexually derived. Despite initial fast growth, daughter colonies experienced high mortality. Premature larval expulsion may have been intrinsically initiated to dispose of resource-costly planulae during colony repair. Corals regenerated well from acute localized injuries, which, along with the ability to temporarily retract and survive repeated crushing, may benefit G. rubiformis in heavily disturbed habitats such as areas impacted by bottom fishing activities where the probability of mechanical disturbance is high.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".