The microbial community of coral reefs: biofilm composition on artificial substrates under different environmental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial reefs are used as tools for the restoration of degrading coral reefs by providing new settlement substrates. The initial recruitment process consists of the formation of microbial biofilms shortly after deployment. The aim of the present study is to compare biofilm composition and development on artificial substrates at two different coral-reef sites. These locations differ in their environmental conditions, including their level of anthropogenic impact. Substrate and seawater samples were collected four times during the first 6 months after deployment, using a new methodology termed ‘tab-by-tab’. DNA was extracted, sequenced, and sorted for both prokaryotic (16s) and eukaryotic (18s) genes. No difference was found between the planktonic communities in the water, yet significant differences were observed in the biofilm communities on the structures at the two sites. Moreover, differences were recorded in coral recruitment rates, which are known to be affected by biofilm composition. Our findings suggest a potential role of environmental conditions in the early biofilm stages (first few months), which in turn may impact the succession and development of coral-reef communities and the success of artificial reefs as restoration tools.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".