Intertidal communities differ between breakwaters and natural rocky areas on ice-scoured Northwest Atlantic coasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first study of the ecological significance of rocky breakwaters as habitat for intertidal biota in marine environments that freeze in winter.Percent cover of intertidal seaweeds and invertebrates was quantified on exposed (high wave action and winter ice scour) and sheltered sides of 18 breakwaters (> 5 yr old) and compared with 18 natural rocky intertidal areas along 430 km of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence coast (Atlantic Canada) in the summer of 2010.Sheltered areas of breakwaters differed from natural rocky shores in having lower biotic richness and total abundance.However, these indices were not significantly different between habitat types for exposed areas.Multivariate analysis revealed significant differences in community composition between breakwaters and natural rocky shores in both sheltered and exposed areas.Ulva spp.(U. intestinalis and U. lactuca), Hildenbrandia rubra, and Mytilus edulis (exposed areas only) were more abundant on breakwaters than on natural rocky shores, while Semibalanus balanoides, Calothrix spp., Fucus spp., Chordaria flagelliformis (exposed areas only), and Ascophyllum nodosum (sheltered areas only) were less abundant on breakwaters.Our study shows that breakwaters from marine shores affected by winter sea ice support substantially different biotic communities than natural rocky intertidal areas.Thus, the findings of this study provide vital information for management decisions related to habitat loss and compensation when the coastal landscape is altered through the construction of breakwaters.
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 | 0.001 | 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".