Living on a trophic subsidy: Algal quality drives an upper-shore herbivore’s consumption, preference and absorption but not growth rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transfer of seaweeds from subtidal bottoms to nearby intertidal rocky shores is a common but often overlooked phenomenon. Freshly detached seaweeds often represent critical trophic subsidies for herbivores living in upper-shore rocky intertidal areas, such as the marine snail Diloma nigerrima. This species relies on three species of seaweeds for food and displays feeding strategies to deal with a resource that is scarce and at times unpredictable. This study focused on the nutritional quality of freshly detached algae (Durvillaea antarctica, Lessonia spicata and Lessonia trabeculata) and measured Diloma nigerrima's algal consumption rates in trials with and without choice. Absorption efficiency and growth of individual snails fed on each alga were also measured. Durvillaea antarctica had the highest nutritional quality and was the most consumed algae in both single and multiple-choice trials. Absorption efficiency was also highest for D. antarctica but growth rates of snails fed with this species were similar to those fed with the other algae. Combined, these results suggest that D. nigerrima has the ability to discriminate among seaweeds based on their nutritional quality. A potential increase in oxygen uptake when D. nigerrima is consuming the preferred food item is also proposed as a plausible hypothesis to explain the mismatch between snails' preference and growth rate. These results aim to guide further studies on trophic subsidies and their role in coastal systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".