Are floating algal mats a refuge from hypoxia for estuarine invertebrates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
form submerged ephemeral mats. Hydrological forces and gases released from photosynthesis and decomposition lead to these mats occasionally floating to the water's surface, henceforth termed floating mats. Here, we explore the hypothesis that floating mats are refugia during periods of sustained hypoxia/anoxia and examine how the invertebrate community responds to it. Floating mats were not always present, so in the first year (2013) sampling was attempted monthly and limited to when both floating and submerged mats occurred. In the subsequent year sampling was weekly, but at only one estuary due to logistical constraints from increased sampling frequency, and was not limited to when both mat types occurred. Water temperature, salinity, and pH were monitored bi-weekly with dissolved oxygen concentration measured hourly. The floating and submerged assemblages shared many of the same taxa but were statistically distinct communities; submerged mats tended to have a greater proportion of benthic animals and floating mats had more mobile invertebrates and insects. In 2014, sampling happened to occur in the weeks before the onset of anoxia, during 113 consecutive hours of sustained anoxia, and for four weeks after normoxic conditions returned. The invertebrate community on floating mats appeared to be unaffected by anoxia, indicating that these mats may be refugia during times of oxygen stress. Conversely, there was a dramatic decrease in animal abundances that remained depressed on submerged mats for two weeks. Cluster analysis revealed that the submerged mat communities from before the onset of anoxia and four weeks after anoxia were highly similar to each other, indicating recovery. When mobile animals were considered alone, there was an exponential relationship between the percentage of animals on floating mats, relative to the total number on both mat types, and hypoxia. The occupation of floating mats by invertebrates at all times, and their dominance there during hypoxia/anoxia, provides support for the hypothesis that floating mats are refugia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".