MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BIOGEOGRAPHY AND ECOLOGY OF THE KELP/RED ALGAL SYMBIOSIS

2000· article· en· W2155882046 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Garbary, K.Y. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKelpBiologyGametophyteSporophyteSymbiosisLaminaria digitataAlgaeBotanyLaminariaRed algaeEcologyBrown algaePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A kelp/red algal symbiosis is described from nature based on extensive collections from the San Juan Islands, Washington. Kelp gametophytes were found as endophytes in the cell walls of seventeen species of red algae in three different kelp communities. Host red algae were mostly filamentous (e.g., Pleonosporium vancouverianum) or polysiphonous (e.g. Polysiphonia paniculata). The kelp gametophytes completed vegetative and reproductive development in the hosts with gametangia formed at the host surface and with sporophytes up to several mm in height being produced while still attached to the host. To date, none of the kelp gametophytes from nature have been identified to genus or species, although the gametophyte of Nereocystis luetkeana is a potential candidate for the symbiosis. Preliminary observations from Nova Scotia and the Isle of Man have not found the association in the Atlantic Ocean. Laboratory studies in Korea successfully reconstructed the symbiosis in the red alga Aglaothamnion oosumiense using zoospores of Undaria pinnatifida but not Laminaria religiosa. Here we outline the development of the symbiosis and discuss the potential adaptive significance of the kelp/red algal interaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207