Growth Resilience of Subarctic Rhodoliths (<i>Lithothamnion glaciale</i>, Rhodophyta) to Chronic Low Sea Temperature and irradiance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhodolith beds are pervasive marine biological systems in the subarctic North Atlantic. Limited knowledge about effects of temperature and irradiance on rhodolith growth limits the ability to anticipate the response of rhodolith beds to this ocean's chronic low, yet changing sea temperature and irradiance regimes. We carried out a 149‐d laboratory experiment with Newfoundland Lithothamnion glaciale rhodoliths to test the predictions that growth (i) is inhibited at temperatures of ~0.5°C and (ii) resumes as temperature increases above 0.5°C, albeit at a higher rate under high than low irradiances. Rhodoliths were grown in experimental tanks at near‐zero (~0.7°C) seawater temperatures during the first 85 d and at temperatures increasing naturally to ~6°C for the remaining 64 d. Rhodoliths in those tanks were exposed to either low (0.02 mol photons·m −2 ·d −1 ) or high (0.78 mol photons·m −2 ·d −1 ) irradiances during the entire experiment. Rhodoliths grew at a linear rate of ~281 μm·year −1 (0.77 μm·d −1 ) throughout the experiment under both irradiance treatments despite daily seawater temperature variation of up to 3°C. Near‐zero temperatures of ~0.5 to 1.0°C did not inhibit rhodolith growth. Model selection showed that PAR‐day (a cumulative irradiance index) was a better predictor of growth variation than Degree‐day (a cumulative thermal index). Our findings extend to ~0.5°C the lower limit of the known temperature range (~1 to at least 16°C) over which growth in L. glaciale rhodoliths remains unaffected, while suggesting that the growth–irradiance relationship in low‐light environments at temperatures below 6°C is less irradiance‐driven than recently proposed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".