Microbial mats and thalassinid shrimp: Spatial and geochemical interactions in a modern intertidal environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This research examines the spatial and geochemical interactions between mat‐forming microorganisms and thalassinid shrimp in an intertidal flat situated on the shores of Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. The study serves as a contemporary analog for the relationships between mats and burrowing organisms in deep time. This methodological approach uses (i) field data to investigate sedimentological characteristics along a transect from heavily burrowed to mat‐dominated sites, (ii) orthophotogrammetry to analyse and quantify mat extent and shrimp burrow density, (iii) porewater samples collected using Rhizon samplers and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry to determine porewater elemental concentrations, (iv) statistical analysis of the position of burrow openings and mat extent and (v) DNA analysis to characterise the microbial community composition of this site. These findings reveal a complex relationship between burrowing organisms and mat‐forming microorganisms, suggesting a potential benefit to burrowing organisms in colonising sediment that is spatially proximal to mats, or covered in discontinuous microbial mats. These findings challenge oversimplified interpretations of the AR that are based on a rigid dichotomy between matgrounds and mixgrounds. A key simplification is the depiction of the AR as a sudden, one‐way shift from matgrounds to bioturbated sediment. While burrowing organisms contributed to the decline of microbial mats, factors such as sediment supply, hydrodynamics and chemical conditions also play a significant role in their spatial distribution. This work highlights that burrower–mat interactions, both past and present, are more nuanced than previously understood.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".