Colonial ascidians strongly preyed upon, yet dominate the substrate in a subtropical fouling community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher diversity and dominance at lower latitudes has been suggested for colonial species. We verified this pattern in species richness of ascidians, finding that higher colonial-to-solitary species ratios occur in the tropics and subtropics. At the latitudinal region with the highest ratio, in southeastern Brazil, we confirmed that colonial species dominate space on artificial plates in two independent studies of five fouling communities. We manipulated settlement plates to measure effects of predation and competition on growth and survivorship of colonial versus solitary ascidians. Eight species were subjected to a predation treatment, i.e. caged versus exposed to predators, and a competition treatment, i.e. leaving versus removing competitors, to assess main and interactive effects. Predation had a greater effect on growth and survivorship of colonial compared to solitary species, whereas competition did not show consistent patterns. We hypothesize that colonial ascidians dominate at this subtropical site despite being highly preyed upon because they regrow when partially consumed and can adjust in shape and space to grow into refuges. We contend that these means of avoiding mortality from predation can have large influences on diversification patterns of colonial species at low latitudes, where predation intensity is greater.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".