Phototactic responses of larvae from the marine sponges <i>Neopetrosia proxima</i> and <i>Xestospongia bocatorensis</i> (Haplosclerida: Petrosiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Previous studies suggest that phototaxis in sponge larvae is generated by the bending of a tuft of long posterior cilia (LPC). The photoresponsiveness of these cilia is often assayed by examining their reaction to sudden changes in light intensity. Here, we document and describe the larvae of the tropical marine sponges Neopetrosia proxima and Xestospongia bocatorensis and examine the phototactic behavior of their larvae. Both species brood ovoid, tufted parenchymella larvae, clearly countering an earlier hypothesis that all petrosid sponges are oviparous. Larvae of N. proxima were positively phototactic and settled after 2 d, while larvae of X. bocatorensis were negatively phototactic and settled in as little as 4 h. In both species, LPC quickly responded to changes in the light intensity. When the light intensity is reduced, the larvae of N. proxima fold the cilia inwards immediately without beating, then flare them outwards, beating for a few seconds, and then gradually return to the neutral position while continuing to beat. In contrast, the larvae of X. bocatorensis flare the cilia outwards when the light intensity is reduced and fold them inwards when the light intensity is increased. Comparisons with reported ciliary responses to light for other species demonstrate that these responses do not show the hypothesized one‐to‐one correspondence with phototactic behaviors and are, therefore, of limited use in explaining the mechanisms that coordinate larval swimming.
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) | 0.002 | 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".