Comparisons of assemblages of phytoplankton between open water and seagrass habitats in a shallow coastal lagoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of phytoplankton in areas with seagrass (Zostera capricorni, Halophila ovalis, and Ruppia megacarpa) and areas without seagrass were quantified in an estuary near Sydney, NSW, Australia. Replicate samples (separated by metres) were collected on 20 randomly chosen occasions over almost 3 years, from two sites (separated by tens of metres) nested in both habitats, at four locations (separated by kilometres). Areas with seagrass often supported a significantly different assemblage of phytoplankton compared with areas without seagrass. Dissimilarities were due to small differences in the relative abundance of taxa, particularly the diatom Pseudonitzschia cf. pseudodelicatissima, rather than the presence or absence of specific taxa. In both habitats, abundances of phytoplankton were patchy at all of the spatial scales sampled, although most of the variation was among replicate samples. These findings emphasise the need to incorporate a hierarchy of scales in programs designed to understand processes that cause spatial and temporal patterns of phytoplankton or to detect changes in response to human activities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".