Skeletal growth of four scleractinian corals is not enhanced by in situ mesozooplankton enrichment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 489:143-153 (2013) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10422 Skeletal growth of four scleractinian corals is not enhanced by in situ mesozooplankton enrichment Alice L. Alldredge1,2,*, Sally J. Holbrook1,2, Russell J. Schmitt1,2, Andrew J. Brooks1, Hannah Stewart1,3 1Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, and 2Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9610, USA 3Present address: West Vancouver Laboratory, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, West Vancouver, British Columbia V7V 1N6, Canada *Email: alldredge@lifesci.ucsb.edu ABSTRACT: The importance of heterotrophy in enhancing the skeletal growth of corals in transparent, shallow tropical waters is unclear. The impact of food availability on coral growth was examined by enriching the abundance of naturally occurring mesozooplankton (>200 µm in width) in situ nightly for 1 mo around transplanted fragments of 4 coral species (Pocillopora verrucosa, Acropora nasuta, Porites rus, Montipora sp.) in a lagoon of Moorea, French Polynesia. Zooplankton were attracted to the corals throughout each night using light from gallium nitride light-emitting diodes tuned to 1 of 4 wavelengths (590 nm [amber], 525 nm [green], 470 nm [blue], 400 nm [near UV, hereafter called violet]). An unlit light source was used as control. Mean total zooplankton abundance and biomass were significantly enriched above ambient concentrations by a factor of 3 to 14 times under green, blue, and violet wavelengths; amber did not enrich abundance or biomass. The mean abundance of specific taxa known to be favored for ingestion by corals (e.g. amphipods, mysids, polychaetes, crustacean larvae) was significantly enriched by as much as 100-fold. Despite sustained increases in the availability of mesozooplankton, none of the 4 coral species experienced higher skeletal growth under zooplankton enrichment compared to those exposed to ambient zooplankton concentrations. This pattern supports the conclusion that skeletal growth of healthy corals living in shallow, light-replete habitats may be adapted for greater reliance on autotrophy. The low ambient flux of zooplankton appears sufficient to meet the heterotrophic needs of the coral species investigated. KEY WORDS: Coral skeletal growth · Mesozooplankton · Coral feeding · Zooplankton enrichment · Coral heterotrophy Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Alldredge AL, Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ, Brooks AJ, Stewart H (2013) Skeletal growth of four scleractinian corals is not enhanced by in situ mesozooplankton enrichment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 489:143-153. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10422 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 489. Online publication date: August 28, 2013 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2013 Inter-Research.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".