Effects of temperature on asexual reproduction and jellyfish booms of Aurelia aurita: Insights from mathematical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elucidating the benthic stage growth and reproductive mechanisms of Aurelia aurita contributes to understanding irregular jellyfish blooms. This paper establishes a four-stage life history model of A. aurita (Polyp–Strobila–Ephyra–Medusa) to investigate the influence of seasonal temperature variations on the abundance of A. aurita . Sensitivity analyses indicate that jellyfish are most sensitive to bottom-up supplementation, with strobilation identified as an essential process in their life cycle. We explore the effects of parameters directly associated with strobilation in the Jiaozhou Bay area on population size, summarizing the interannual variations across the four stages of A. aurita , which aligns with empirical data. The investigation reveals that (i) consistent with recent biological literature, strobilation of A. aurita in temperate regions primarily occurs during periods of increasing spring sea surface temperatures rather than during autumn temperature declines, leading to summer jellyfish blooms; (ii) regression and subsequent strobilation favor an increase in the pelagic medusae population; (iii) the influence of rising sea surface temperatures due to climate change on the growth and reproduction of A. aurita manifests as initial stimulation followed by inhibition; (iv) earlier strobilation in spring may lead to more extensive A. aurita outbreaks in summer, providing insights for early warning of jellyfish blooms. • Strobilation of A. aurita in temperate regions primarily occurs in spring. • Regression and subsequent strobilation favor an increase in the pelagic medusae population. • The influence of rising sea surface temperatures due to global warming on the growth and reproduction of A. aurita manifests as initial stimulation followed by inhibition. • Earlier strobilation in spring may lead to more extensive A. aurita outbreaks in summer, providing insights for early warning of jellyfish blooms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".