Sources of variation in microscopic epibiont communities on intertidal rocky organisms in Niigata, Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microscopic epibionts are important components of an intertidal ecosystem. However, because the epibionts are established on habitats provided by basibiont (host) organisms, the epibionts are affected by both the characteristics of basibionts and the environmental conditions on the shore. Here, we hypothesized that variations in the epibiont community were affected by the mobility, size, and surface roughness of the basibiont organisms, and environmental conditions during a one-month period in spring. Epibionts growing on 16 basibiont species belonging to Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polyplacophora and Echinoidea, as well as those that had settled on plastic objects were collected from a rocky shore in Niigata, Japan. Most epibionts collected were diatoms, and the highest epibiont density was recorded on the surfaces of the limpet Cellana toreuma . The epibiont community changed significantly from April to May, and was also shaped by the characteristics of the basibionts. The results indicated that basibionts with sessile, large, or smooth surfaces had higher taxonomic richness, Simpson diversity, and epibiont density than those with mobile, small, or rough surfaces. Multivariate analysis of the epibiont community confirmed the importance of these basibiont characteristics and the survey month. Six groups of epibiont community were identified based on their contrasting sample communities, and each had their own indicator species. The results indicate that both environmental changes from April to May and changes in basibiont species promote changes in the epibiont community in this coastal region.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".