Thermal and Hydrodynamic Environments Mediate Individual and Aggregative Feeding of a Functionally Important Omnivore in Reef Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In eastern Canada, the destruction of kelp beds by dense aggregations (fronts) of the omnivorous green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, is a key determinant of the structure and dynamics of shallow reef communities. Recent studies suggest that hydrodynamic forces, but not sea temperature, determine the strength of urchin-kelp interactions, which deviates from the tenets of the metabolic theory of ecology (MTE). We tested the hypothesis that water temperature can predict short-term kelp bed destruction by S. droebachiensis in calm hydrodynamic environments. Specifically, we experimentally determined relationships among water temperature, body size, and individual feeding in the absence of waves, as well as among wave velocity, season, and aggregative feeding. We quantified variation in kelp-bed boundary dynamics, sea temperature, and wave height over three months at one subtidal site in Newfoundland to test the validity of thermal tipping ranges and regression equations derived from laboratory results. Consistent with the MTE, individual feeding during early summer (June-July) obeyed a non-linear, size- and temperature-dependent relationship: feeding in large urchins was consistently highest and positively correlated with temperature <12°C and dropped within and above the 12-15°C tipping range. This relationship was more apparent in large than small urchins. Observed and expected rates of kelp loss based on sea temperature and urchin density and size structure at the front were highly correlated and differed by one order of magnitude. The present study speaks to the importance of considering body size and natural variation in sea temperature in studies of urchin-kelp interactions. It provides the first compelling evidence that sea temperature, and not only hydrodynamic forces, can predict kelp bed destruction by urchin fronts in shallow reef communities. Studying urchin-seaweed-predator interactions within the conceptual foundations of the MTE holds high potential for improving capacity to predict and manage shifts in marine food web structure and productivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".