Trophic ecology of glass sponge reefs in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sponges link the microbial loop with benthic communities by feeding on bacteria. Glass sponge reefs on the continental shelf of western Canada have extremely high grazing rates, consuming seven times more particulate carbon than can be supplied by vertical flux alone. Unlike many sponges, the reef building species Aphrocallistes vastus has no microbial symbionts and removes little dissolved organic carbon. To determine how reef sponges therefore get enough food to sustain such substantial grazing we measured stable carbon and nitrogen isotope signatures of water, sediment and sponge tissues. To ensure samples were temporally associated, we also studied the duration particles were retained in tissues in controlled feeding studies using microscopic beads and 13C-labeled bacteria. Although fecal pellets were expelled from sponges within 24 hours of feeding, intact bacteria were still found in tissues and sponge tissues retained elevated 13C levels for at least 14 days. These independent lines of evidence suggest that carbon in reef sponge tissues may reflect food consumed from days to weeks earlier. Stable isotope analysis suggests that heterotrophic bacteria ingested by the sponges comes from a confluence of trophic subsidies: from terrestrial and oceanic sources, and also potentially on sediment-borne bacteria resuspended by tidal currents.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".