Headwinds to understanding stress response physiology: A systematic review reveals mismatch between real and simulated marine heatwaves on coral reefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
· We assessed whether lab heat studies resembled marine heatwaves on coral reefs. · Lab study maximum temperatures and heat accumulation were higher than marine heatwaves. · Lab study heating durations were 1.5 × shorter than marine heatwaves. · Lab study heating rates were 7.3 × higher than those of marine heatwaves. · Exposure differences altered the predictive relationship between physiology and warming. Laboratory experiments have long been used to guide predictions of organismal stress in response to the rapidly changing climate. However, the ability to simulate real world conditions in the laboratory can be a barrier to prediction accuracy. We performed a systematic review of experimental coral bleaching literature and assembled a database to identify the methods used to measure bleaching in heating experiments and assess how closely heating experiments resembled marine heatwaves (MHWs) on coral reefs. Observations of the maximum photochemical yield of Photosystem II ( F V / F M ), though not a direct measure of dysbiosis, vastly outnumbered Symbiodiniaceae density and chlorophyll observations in the reviewed literature, indicating its widespread misuse as a proxy for coral dysbiosis. Laboratory studies in our database used higher maximum temperatures (∼ 0.9 ×), degree heating times (∼ 1.7 ×) and heating rates (∼ 7.3 ×), and shorter durations (∼ 1.5 ×), than MHWs on coral reefs. We then asked whether exposure differences between laboratory experiments and reef conditions altered the relationship between coral dysbiosis and heating metrics using the example of hormesis. We fit curves on the data both with and without ecologically relevant heating metrics and found hormetic curves in some response variables that were altered with the exclusion of exposures that fell outside of the bounds of MHWs on coral reefs, indicating a high likelihood of prediction error. We recommend that laboratory-based studies of coral dysbiosis use ecologically relevant exposures to improve predictions of the physiological response of corals to our rapidly warming oceans.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".