Interactions Between Sessile Species Groups from Wave-Exposed Rocky Intertidal Habitats in Atlantic Canada Evaluated Using Multiannual Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within biogeographic regions, local communities are structured mainly by abiotic (environmental) filtering, external resource supply, and biotic interactions. In recent years, we investigated abiotic filtering and external resource supply as drivers of the latitudinal distribution of rocky intertidal species along the Atlantic Canadian coast in Nova Scotia. Here, we evaluate biotic interactions between the main sessile species groups. Specifically, we studied abundance relationships between seaweeds and filter-feeding invertebrates and between barnacles and mussels using data collected at mid-to-high intertidal elevations at eight wave-exposed locations every summer from 2014 to 2017. We assessed such relationships for each location and year through generalized additive modeling (GAM). Of the 32 relationships evaluated for seaweeds vs. filter-feeders, 31% were significant and consistently negative, suggesting competitive interactions. For barnacles vs. mussels, 25% of the relationships were significant and mostly positive, consistent with facilitation of mussel colonization by barnacles in harsh environments. The variability explained by these models was moderate, however, between around 10% and 50%. Overall, these results suggest that interactions between the studied sessile species groups are infrequent and, when present, relatively weak in these highly stressful habitats, which supports current ecological theory on community organization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".