A comparison of epifauna and epiphytes on native kelps (Laminaria species) and an invasive alga (Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides) in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared epifaunal and epiphytic assemblages on the invasive alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides , with those on native kelps, Laminaria longicruris and L. digitata , at a moderately exposed site on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia. Thalli of each algal host ( Laminaria and/or Codium ) were sampled in two stands with monospecific canopy cover and one mixed canopy stand ( Laminaria and Codium ) in June and November 2004 and February 2005. Epifaunal assemblages on both fronds and holdfasts differed between algal species and among months, but no differences were detected between mixed and monospecific stands for each host type. Fronds of Laminaria supported greater densities of gastropods and asteroids, while amphipods, harpacticoid copepods, and a specialist herbivore ( Placida dendritica ) were more abundant on fronds of Codium . Holdfasts of Codium supported greater densities of nematodes and bivalves. Diversity of epifauna was greater on fronds of Codium than Laminaria and similar on holdfasts of both species. Codium supported a greater density of epiphytes than Laminaria . Total frond area of Laminaria and/or Codium and density of epifauna per m 2 of substratum did not differ between stands. Our results suggest that habitat selection by epibionts is likely determined by specific chemical, structural and morphological characteristics of the algal species, rather than the amount of habitable area available for colonization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".