MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982352441 · doi:10.1111/jpy.12943

Influence of waves and currents on the growth rate of the kelp <i>Laminaria digitata</i> (Phaeophyceae)

2019· article· en· W2982352441 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Millar, Jonathan D. R. Houghton, Björn Elsäβer, Paul J. Mensink, Louise Kregting

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsKelpLaminaria digitataIntertidal zoneBiologyGrowth rateCurrent (fluid)LaminariaProductivitySeawaterKelp forestStipe (mycology)Relative growth rateOceanographyEcologyAlgaeBotanyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kelp Laminaria digitata growing in the low intertidal region along energetic coastlines are exposed to a range of hydrodynamic environments. Macroalgae in the intertidal zone can experience both waves and currents independently, but it is unknown how they influence growth rate. Relative growth rate of the meristematic region and the entire blade of L. digitata were measured to assess the influence of wave and current motion from three hydrodynamic environments: low current and low wave (LCLW), high current and low wave (HCLW), and high wave and low current (HWLC). Alongside hydrodynamic data, seawater nutrient concentrations and temperature were also collected and analyzed. Results suggest that differences in L. digitata relative growth rates were not attributed to the seawater nutrient concentrations or temperature, but attributed to the hydrodynamic environments. At the high current condition, kelp growth rate of the meristematic region was enhanced by 45% compared to the high wave condition. When including the entire blade growth rate, an average increase of 25% was observed between the high current and high wave condition. Potentially, the division in growth rate observed between the wave and current motion is related to the frequency and magnitude at which the hydrodynamic forces act. These findings highlight the complexity of the hydrodynamic environment and that forces associated with waves and currents may have a significant role on the productivity of kelp.

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 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207