MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328236255 · doi:10.1017/s0025315415000466

Dynamic change, recruitment and resilience in reef-forming glass sponges

2015· article· en· W2328236255 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Kahn, Laura J. Vehring, Rachel Brown, Sally P. Leys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReefSpongeOceanographyJuvenileFisheryBiologyGeographyEcologyGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glass sponge reefs on the continental shelf of western Canada and south-east Alaska are considered stable deep-sea habitats that do not change significantly over time. Research cruises using a remotely operated vehicle equipped with accurate GPS positioning have allowed us to observe the same sponges at two reefs in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia to document recruitment, growth and response to damage over time. Spermatocysts and putative embryos found in winter suggest annual, asynchronous reproduction. Juvenile sponges (2–10 cm in osculum diameter) in densities up to 1 m−2 were more concentrated near live sponges and sponge skeletons than away (Spearman rank correlations, P < 0.0001 for live cover and for skeletons), suggesting that recruitment occurs in particular regions using sponge skeletons as substrate. Most sponges showed no change in shape or size over 2–3 years, but some had died while others showed growth of 1–9 cm year−1. Deposition rates of reef-cementing sediments were 97 mm year−1 at Galiano Reef and 137 mm year−1 at Fraser Reef, but sediments eroded so that there was no net gain or loss over time. Sponges recovered within 1 year from small-scale damage that mimicked bites by fish or nudibranchs; however sponges did not recover from crushing of a large area (1.5 × 2 m2) even 3 years later. These observations and experiments show that while recruitment and growth of sponge reefs is more dynamic than previously thought, the reefs are not resilient in the face of larger-scale disturbances such as might be inflicted by trawling.

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)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207