Conditional mutualism between the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera and colonial epifauna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally considered that colonial invertebrates living on the surfaces of macroalgae have a negative influence on the growth rates and survivorship of their substratum.To date no evidence has been provided from natural macroalgal/epifaunal associations to support this view.We investigated the influence of colonial bryozoans and hydrozoans on the growth rate and nitrogen physiology of their substratum, the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera, and the impact of seasonal changes of light and the seawater nitrogen concentration on this relationship.Throughout this study there was no evidence of any negative impact of colonization by either epifaunal group on the growth of M. pyrifera.During a period of low concentrations of inorganic nitrogen in seawater, the growth of M. pyrifera fronds heavily colonized by hydroid colonies was higher than less heavily colonized individuals.During this time hydroids could provide on average between 71 and 122% of the nitrogen required for uptake by tagged M. pyrifera fronds at ambient seawater nitrogen concentrations.Evidence suggests that enhanced growth was caused by the provision of ammonium excreted by the hydroid colonies.Evolutionary pressure to limit the impact of colonization by sessile animals on macroalgae is likely to be exerted on both the algal substratum and the attached animal.We suggest that due to their close relationship this pressure may ultimately result in the development of mutualistic partnerships between algae and specialized sessile seaweed-dwelling fauna in natural associations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".