MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599146866 · doi:10.7717/peerj.3080

Are floating algal mats a refuge from hypoxia for estuarine invertebrates?

2017· article· en· W2599146866 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael R.S. Coffin, Kyle M. Knysh, Emma F. Theriault, Christina C. Pater, Simon C. Courtenay, Michael R. van den Heuvel

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
KeywordsAlgal matBenthic zoneEutrophicationHypoxia (environmental)InvertebrateEcologyEstuarySalinityMicrobial matEnvironmental scienceNutrientBiologyAlgaeOceanographyOxygenGeologyChemistryCyanobacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207