Effects of eutrophication, grazing, and algal blooms on rocky shores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eutrophication can profoundly change rocky shore communities. These changes often cause the replacement of perennial, canopy‐forming algae such as Fucus spp. with annual, bloom‐forming algae such as Enteromorpha spp. Grazing, however, can counteract eutrophication by eliminating the annual algae’s susceptible recruits. We examine these generalizations across large scales. We use replicated “bioassay” experiments to compare the effects of eutrophication and grazing across four paired control versus eutrophied sites in the Northwest Atlantic and four eutrophied sites in the Baltic Sea in spring and summer. At each site, annual algal recruitment and grazing pressure were estimated using tiles seeded with Enteromorpha intestinalis propagules. Tiles were exposed for 3 weeks with grazers excluded or allowed access. Productivity of E. intestinalis recruits was strongly related to eutrophication (10‐fold increase) and grazing (80% decrease) and was weakly related to season. While the absolute grazing rate increased in a linear fashion with algal productivity, the relative grazing rate remained surprisingly constant (;80%). Comparative field surveys showed that perennial algae decreased by 30–60%, while annual algae, filter feeders, and grazers increased across a gradient of eutrophication. As eutrophication increased from control to eutrophied to point source sites, rocky shore communities became increasingly dominated by single species of annual algae or filter feeders, and community diversity declined consistently by 24–46%. We conclude that grazers are important controllers of algal blooms but that, ultimately, they cannot override the effects of increasing eutrophication on rocky shore community structure and biodiversity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".