Evaluating the role of moonlight-darkness dynamics as proximate spawning cues in an Acropora coral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For sessile broadcast spawning marine invertebrates, such as corals, successful sexual reproduction depends on conspecifics spawning synchronously. The precise monthly, lunar, and diel timing and the extent of synchrony, i.e., proportion of population reproducing at the same time, are likely to play a key role in coral population recovery, persistence, and adaptation. Despite its importance, the mechanisms by which different environmental factors trigger corals to spawn on specific dates within the lunar cycle remain poorly understood. Periods of darkness post-sunset around full moon of the spawning month have been shown to induce spawning in merulinid corals, whereas for Acropora, moonlight is considered the main determinant driver of night of spawning. Here, we conducted two manipulative field experiments around full moon in Palau using the common table coral Acropora aff. hyacinthus to disentangle the role of moonlight and darkness post-sunset as proximate cues. Coral fragments were assigned to three treatments providing different post-sunset darkness conditions, versus control and procedural control fragments exposed to natural conditions. In contrast to previous studies on Acropora, we found that Acropora aff. hyacinthus can spawn synchronously in the absence of moonlight during the nights leading to spawning. Corals exposed to darkness post-sunset for at least two to three consecutive nights advanced their spawning compared to controls. This finding indicates that periods of darkness post-sunset can act as an inducer for spawning in Acropora as well as in merulinid corals, suggesting that this mechanism may be more widespread than previously thought.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".