Calcified coralline algae have similar caloric value to uncalcified algae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A long-held paradigm in marine herbivore ecology is that calcified coralline algae are less nutritious than their uncalcified, fleshy counterparts, partially explaining why herbivores prefer to consume uncalcified algae. The basis for this assumption is that calcium carbonate (CaCO3) comprises a large portion of coralline thalli and is a dense, non-nutritious compound that lowers the relative caloric value. Caloric analyses generally make comparisons using dry weight, which is not a biologically relevant metric to assess algal caloric value: algae are not consumed dry and are consumed by volume rather than by weight. We determined the caloric value of 5 fleshy, uncalcified algal species and 5 calcified coralline algal species on a per-dry-weight and per-volume basis. Results clearly indicated that when compared on a per-dry-weight basis, uncalcified thalli were more calorie rich than coralline thalli. However, on a per-volume basis, coralline and uncalcified thalli were more similar, and the caloric value of some corallines exceeded that of some kelps. Our data show that calcified and uncalcified thalli have similar proportions of organic tissue, with a large portion of uncalcified thalli composed of water and a similar portion of calcified thalli composed of water and CaCO3. We argue that a volumetric assessment of the caloric values of macroalgae is more relevant and accurate than a dry-weight metric. The widespread observation that herbivores prefer uncalcified over coralline algae cannot be explained by differences in caloric content, indicating that another mechanism must account for many marine herbivores’ avoidance of calcified coralline algae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".