Annual Aboveground Biomass and Productivity Estimates for Intertidal Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Cobscook Bay, Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimated the aboveground productivity of eelgrass, Zostera marina, in Cobscook Bay at three soft-bottom lower intertidal locations during 1995–1996. Approximately 30 plants were tagged bi-weekly or monthly at two sites where we used a completely randomized block design to assess spatial variability in leaf initiation and elongation rates. The data showed strong seasonal patterns with highest rates from June–September and lowest rates from November–April. At one site, Bell Farm, plants were tagged at two discrete tidal levels (intertidal and sublittoral fringe). On each sampling date, mean leaf biomass and new leaf production were 2.7 and 1.7 times greater, respectively, for plants in the sublittoral fringe. At another site, Mahar Cove, all tagged plants were restricted to one tidal level. Spatial variation in leaf biomass and new leaf production were examined on the first four sampling dates and significant effects were observed twice. Productivity estimates ranged from 0.095 g dry wt m−2 day−1 (November–January) to 1.215 g dry wt m−2 day−1 (August) at Bell Farm. At Mahar Cove, rates ranged from 0.176 g dry wt m−2 day−1 (March–April) to 1.490 g dry wt m−2 day−1 (August). Average annual productivity at Bell Farm and Mahar Cove was 0.481 ± 0.512 g dry wt m−2 day−1 and 0.784 ± 0.512 g dry wt m−2 day−1, respectively. These estimates correlate directly with seawater temperature, but not with salinity, nitrate, and total phosphorous. The time for plants to fully turn over their leaves at the two sites ranged from 50.5–56.7 days (6.4–7.2 turnovers per year), and are comparable to other locations in the northeast US and the Canadian Maritimes. We estimate that total (interidal subtidal) eelgrass production in Cobscook Bay ranges from 3.3–5.3 × 108 g C year−1. This is the first appraisal of growth and productivity of Z. marina in eastern Maine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".