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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.010 | 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".