SELF‐THINNING AND SIZE INEQUALITY DYNAMICS IN A CLONAL SEAWEED (<i>SARGASSUM LAPAZEANUM</i>, PHAEOPHYCEAE)<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fronds of clonal seaweeds with extensive holdfasts relative to frond size are known not to self-thin during growth, even in crowded stands. We tested whether frond self-thinning would occur for such a seaweed since these traits are more similar to those of unitary seaweeds, which do self-thin in crowded conditions. We used Sargassum lapazeanum Setch. et N. L. Gardner (Fucales, Phaeophyceae) from the Pacific coast of Mexico, for which we first confirmed its clonal nature by performing a regeneration experiment in culture tanks. During the growth season (winter to late spring), S. lapazeanum stand biomass increased, while frond density and size inequality (Gini coefficient for frond biomass) decreased. These results indicate that self-thinning occurred at the frond level. We propose a conceptual model for frond dynamics for clonal seaweeds in general. In stands of clonal species with small fronds and relatively extensive holdfasts (particularly when holdfasts are perennial), frond dynamics would be determined mostly by intraclonal regulation, which seems to prevent excessive crowding from occurring. Such species display a positive biomass-density relationship during the growth season. On the contrary, in stands of clonal species with large fronds relative to holdfast size, frond dynamics would be determined mostly by interactions among genets. For such species, self-thinning may be detected at the frond level in crowded stands, resulting in a negative biomass-density relationship during growth.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".