Recruitment of hard coral communities on giant clam shells (Cardiidae: <i>Tridacna</i>) differ from surrounding reef habitats at a tourist destination in the Gulf of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Giant clams are organisms of significant ecological importance on coral reefs. They are known to help maintain oligotrophic conditions on reefs, to act as potential reservoirs of symbiotic dinoflagellates and as a consequence of their large, dense shells, to contribute to reef structural complexity. Despite this, little work has been done to investigate the utility of giant clam shells for coral recruitment. Here, we quantify scleractinian coral growth on living and dead giant clams around the Thai island of Koh Tao, a site with a history of environmental and anthropogenic pressure related to tourism. Transect surveys at 15 reefs around the island yielded 739 clams, of which 120 were found to support coral recruits. A total of 270 distinct corals were recorded between depths of 2.1 and 8 m (none were found at depths shallower than 2 m), with 29% found on dead shells and 71% on living clams. Differences were found in the community structure of hard corals found on clam shells vs those found in surrounding reef environments, with mushroom corals (Fungiidae) and Stylocoeniella being significantly more abundant on clam shells than on the natural reef. In contrast, corals abundant on surrounding reefs (e.g. Acropora and Porites) were disproportionately better represented on the reef than on clam shells. This suggests that giant clam shells may play a significant role in the succession of coral reefs with certain corals being preferentially supported over others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".