Massive corals maintain a positive carbonate budget of a Maldivian upper reef platform despite major bleaching event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coral reefs experienced the third global bleaching event in 2015–2016 due to high sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies. Declines in net carbonate production associated with coral bleaching are implicated in reef structural collapse and cascading impacts for adjacent coral reef islands. We present the first carbonate budget study of a reef platform surface (reef crest and reef flat) in the southern Maldives and the first record of upper reef flat condition in the central Indian Ocean post the 2015–2016 coral bleaching event. Scleractinian corals were the primary carbonate producers, with live coral cover averaging between 11.1 ± 6.5 and 31.2 ± 21.8% and dominated by massive corals. Gross carbonate production rates averaged 5.9 ± 2.5 G (kg CaCO 3 m 2 yr −1 ). Bioerosion was estimated at 3.4 ± 0.4 G, resulting in an average net carbonate production rate of 2.5 ± 2.4 G. Comparison of results with a study of the fore-reef slope highlights major differences in post-bleaching carbonate budget state between the fore-reef slope and the reef platform surface. The positive reef flat carbonate budget is attributed to the persistence of massive corals ( Porites spp. and Heliopora spp.) through the bleaching event.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".