Distribution Patterns of Zoochlorellae and Zooxanthellae Hosted by Two Pacific Northeast Anemones, <i>Anthopleura elegantissima</i> and <i>A. xanthogrammica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated patterns in the relative abundance of two photosynthetic algal symbionts, zoochlorellae (ZC) and zooxanthellae (ZX), hosted by two temperate anemones, Anthopleura elegantissima and A. xanthogrammica. Previous studies have documented varying proportions of each symbiont along environmental gradients, presumably determined by their respective physiological capabilities. To test for differences in the algal type between the two host species, we sampled anemone tissues (tentacle or tentacle and body column) of similarly sized polyps that were located close together in multiple habitats: tidepools, crevices, underneath rock ledges, and along natural light gradients in caves. The ZC-A. elegantissima symbiosis was rare on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Even in low-irradiance habitats, ZC were the dominant algae hosted by A. xanthogrammica, while nearby A. elegantissima hosted ZX or was algae-free. As a first step in determining whether symbiont growth rates differed between the two host species, we quantified mitotic index (MI), the percentage of cells with division furrows, under artificial light and in the field by simultaneously sampling tentacles from both species. MI was more stable in A. elegantissima: the MI of ZX isolated from the tentacles of A. xanthogrammica was slightly higher at a light level of 80 micromol quanta m(-2) s(-1) than it was for ZX from A. elegantissima (respectively, 7.3 vs. 6.2) and relatively lower at 40 micromol quanta m(-2) s(-1) (3.9 vs. 5.6). Our data indicate host-specific differences in symbiont distributions and MI when extrinsic physical parameters were similar.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".