Looking for the sponge loop: analyses of detritus on a Caribbean forereef using stable isotope and eDNA metabarcoding techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coral reefs are biodiverse ecosystems that rely on trophodynamic transfers from primary producers to consumers through the detrital pathway. The sponge loop hypothesis proposes that sponges consume dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and produce large quantities of detritus on coral reefs, with this turn-over approaching the daily gross primary production of the reef ecosystem. In this study, we collected samples of detritus in the epilithic algal matrix (EAM) and samples from potential sources of detritus over two seasons from the forereef at Carrie Bow Cay, Belize. We chose this location to maximize the likelihood of finding support for the sponge loop hypothesis because Caribbean reefs have higher sponge abundances than other tropical reefs worldwide and the Mesoamerican barrier reef is an archetypal coral reef ecosystem. We used stable isotope analyses and eDNA metabarcoding to determine the composition of the detritus. We determined that the EAM detritus was derived from a variety of benthic and pelagic sources, with primary producers (micro- and macroalgae) as major contributors and metazoans (Arthropoda, Porifera, Cnidaria, Mollusca) as minor contributors. None of the sponge species that reportedly produce detritus were present in EAM detritus. The cnidarian signature in EAM detritus was dominated by octocorals, with a scarcity of hard corals. The composition of detritus also varied seasonally. The negligible contribution of sponges to reef detritus contrasts with the detrital pathway originally proposed in the sponge loop hypothesis. The findings indicate a mix of pelagic and benthic sources in the calmer summer and primarily benthic sources in the more turbulent spring.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".