PREDATION ON MODERN AND FOSSIL BRACHIOPODS: ASSESSING CHEMICAL DEFENSES AND PALATABILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The post-Paleozoic decline of the diversity and abundance of rhynchonelliform brachiopods has been attributed to a variety of factors. Of the possible mechanisms invoked to explain the evolutionary decline and cryptic or antitropical distribution of brachiopods, predation has frequently been dismissed due to the potentially low energetic value and suspected nonpalatability or toxicity of brachiopod tissues. Herein we demonstrate that multiple invertebrate marine predators (crustaceans, echinoderms, and gastropods) are willing and able to consume brachiopods in laboratory settings without observable negative effects after ingestion. In addition, field samples indicate predation pressure on the living brachiopod population may be substantial. Although feeding trials are consistent with previous reports that bivalves are preferred prey relative to brachiopods, predation should not be dismissed as a potentially important factor in brachiopod ecology and evolution. The results presented herein reveal that in some cases brachiopods may be the intended target of predatory attacks, especially in habitats where mollusks are rare or absent. Examination of the fossil record of predation on rhynchonelliform brachiopods is consistent with this interpretation: evidence for drilling and repair of brachiopod shells is found throughout the fossil record in multiple lineages. While it is likely that predation traces on post-Paleozoic brachiopods are generally rare, there are multiple reports of fossil localities with anomalously high drill-hole or repair-scar frequencies. This suggests that although brachiopods may be unwanted prey in the presence of energetically more desirable targets, they do appear to be edible and subject to intense predator-prey interactions under certain conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".