MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942955298 · doi:10.7717/peerj.6892

A 5-year study (2014–2018) of the relationship between coastal phytoplankton abundance and intertidal barnacle size along the Atlantic Canadian coast

2019· article· en· W2942955298 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ricardo A. Scrosati, Julius A. Ellrich

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsBarnacleIntertidal zonePhytoplanktonOceanographyAbundance (ecology)EcologyEnvironmental scienceFisheryBiologyCrustaceanGeologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benthic–pelagic coupling refers to the ecological relationships between benthic and pelagic environments. Studying such links is particularly useful to understand biological variation in intertidal organisms along marine coasts. Filter-feeding invertebrates are ecologically important on marine rocky shores, so they have often been used to investigate benthic–pelagic coupling. Most studies, however, have been conducted on eastern ocean boundaries. To evaluate benthic–pelagic coupling on a western ocean boundary, we conducted a 5-year study spanning 415 km of the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia (Canada). We hypothesized that the summer size of intertidal barnacles ( Semibalanus balanoides ) recruited in the preceding spring would be positively related to the nearshore abundance (biomass) of phytoplankton, as phytoplankton constitutes food for the nauplius larvae and benthic stages of barnacles. Every year between 2014 and 2018, we measured summer barnacle size in clearings created before spring recruitment on the rocky substrate at eight wave-exposed locations along this coast. We then examined the annual relationships between barnacle size and chlorophyll- a concentration (Chl- a ), a proxy for phytoplankton biomass. For every year and location, we used satellite data to calculate Chl- a averages for a period ranging from the early spring (when most barnacle larvae were in the water) to the summer (when barnacle size was measured after weeks of growth following spring benthic recruitment). The relationships were always positive, Chl- a explaining nearly half, or more, of the variation in barnacle size in four of the five studied years. These are remarkable results because they were based on a relatively limited number of locations (which often curtails statistical power) and point to the relevance of pelagic food supply to explain variation in intertidal barnacle size along this western ocean boundary coast.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207