Form–function relationships in a marine foundation species depend on scale: a shoot to global perspective from a distributed ecological experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Form–function relationships in plants underlie their ecosystem roles in supporting higher trophic levels through primary production, detrital pathways, and habitat provision. For widespread, phenotypically‐variable plants, productivity may differ not only across abiotic conditions, but also from distinct morphological or demographic traits. A single foundation species, eelgrass Zostera marina , typically dominates north temperate seagrass meadows, which we studied across 14 sites spanning 32–61°N latitude and two ocean basins. Body size varied by nearly two orders of magnitude through this range, and was largest at mid‐latitudes and in the Pacific Ocean. At the global scale, neither latitude, site‐level environmental conditions, nor body size helped predict productivity (relative growth rate 1–2% day ‐1 at most sites), suggesting a remarkable capacity of Z. marina to achieve similar productivity in summer. Furthermore, among a suite of stressors applied within sites, only ambient leaf damage reduced productivity; grazer reduction and nutrient addition had no effect on eelgrass size or growth. Scale‐dependence was evident in different allometric relationships within and across sites for productivity and for modules (leaf count) relative to size. Zostera marina provides a range of ecosystem functions related to both body size (habitat provision, water flow) and growth rates (food, carbon dynamics). Our observed decoupling of body size and maximum production suggests that geographic variation in these ecosystem functions may be independent, with a future need to resolve how local adaptation or plasticity of body size might actually enable more consistent peak productivity across disparate environmental conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".