Role of Astrophorina sponges (Demospongiae) in food-web interactions at the Flemish Cap (NW Atlantic)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep-sea sponges are important contributors to carbon and nitrogen cycling due to their large filtration capacity. Species of the suborder Astrophorina form dense sponge grounds in the North Atlantic, where they serve as prey for spongivores, but also have non-trophic interactions with commensal epi- and endobionts. At the Flemish Cap (NW Atlantic) Astrophorina sponges are present in four previously described deep-sea epifaunal assemblages: the deep-sea coral assemblage, the lower slope assemblages 1 and 2, and the deep-sea sponge assemblage. To investigate their role in trophic and non-trophic interactions at the Flemish Cap, we developed trophic-/ non-trophic interaction web models for each of the four faunal assemblages using the published literature. By excluding the sponges from the models, we estimated how many trophic, facultative and obligatory non-trophic links would be lost, and how this removal affected food-web properties (number of compartments, links, link density, and connectance). Astrophorina sponges were mostly linked via facultative non-trophic links to 60, 59, 86, and 92 compartments in the deep-sea coral, the lower slope 1 and 2, and the deep-sea sponge assemblages, respectively. Direct trophic links only existed to Echinasteridae and Pterasteridae. As removing Astrophorina sponges from the interaction webs of the different assemblages had the highest impact on food-web properties compared to removing any other fauna present, these sponges were considered “highest impact taxa”. They were also identified, along with sea pens, as “structural species”/ “habitat formers” and “foundation species” based on non-trophic interactions in the deep-sea coral and deep-sea sponge assemblages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".