Effects of increased heat on fluorescence and dinoflagellate density in the captive coral, <i>Anthelia</i> sp <i>.</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The obligate mutualistic relationship between corals and dinoflagellates is a classic example of symbiosis. Coral reefs have been devastated by warm water temperatures at a rapid pace and currently, there is no effective method to predict a mass bleaching event. Fluorescence is a potential indicator of coral health but very few studies have attempted to utilize it as a proxy for dinoflagellate density, which was the scope of the present research. Here, we determined the effects of elevated water temperatures on fluorescence, dinoflagellate density, and mitotic index in the captive coral, Anthelia sp. Over a six-week period, tanks filled with Anthelia sp. underwent gradual increases in water temperature beginning at 28ºC and ending at 34ºC . Coral samples were quantified for fluorescence, dinoflagellate density, and mitotic index by fluorescence microscopy of whole specimens and a maceration method to examine dinoflagellates. As a result of the gradual increase in water temperature, corrected fluorescence decreased over time. In contrast, dinoflagellate density first increased until reaching a thermal limit that was then followed by a decrease. This was driven by an increase in the rate of cell division before the limit and a decrease afterwards. These results suggest that symbionts may be increasing their mitotic rate in response to elevated water temperatures to compensate for the shortage of photosynthate supply for their host. Because fluorescence dropped simultaneously with the increase in dinoflagellate density and mitotic index, coral fluorescence may be utilized as a prognostic tool for coral bleaching in Anthelia sp.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".