Physiological performance of intertidal coralline algae during a simulated tidal cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intertidal macroalgae endure light, desiccation, and temperature variation associated with sub-merged and emerged conditions on a daily basis. Physiological stresses exist over the course of the entire tidal cycle, and physiological differences in response to these stresses likely contribute to spatial separation of species along the shore. For example, marine species that have a high stress tolerance can live higher on the shore and are able to recover when the tide returns, whereas species with a lower stress tolerance may be relegated to living lower on the shore or in tidepools, where low tide stresses are buffered. In this study, we monitored the physiological responses of the tidepool coralline Calliarthron tuberculosum (Postels and Ruprecht) E.Y. Dawson and the nontidepool coralline Corallina vancouveriensis Yendo during simulated tidal conditions to identify differences in physiology that might underlie differences in habitat. During high tide, Corallina was more photosynthetically active than Calliarthron as light levels increased. During low tide, Corallina continued to out-perform Calliarthron when submerged in warming tidepools, but photosynthesis abruptly halted for both species when emerged in air. Surprisingly, pigment composition did not differ, suggesting that light harvesting does not account for this difference. Additionally, Corallina was more effective at resisting desiccation by retaining water in its branches. When the tide returned, only Corallina recovered from combined temperature and desiccation stresses associated with emergence. This study broadens our understanding of intertidal algal physiology and provides a new perspective on the physiological and morphological underpinnings of habitat partitioning.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".