Regeneration and reproduction of Mazzaella cornucopiae (Rhodophyta,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects that different intensities of frond harvesting have on frond regeneration and subsequent production of reproductive structures were investigated for the red intertidal alga Mazzaella cornucopiae (Postels & Ruprecht) Hommersand from British Columbia, Canada. Harvesting was done by pruning fronds in the late spring (when stand biomass is highest) of 1993 at two intensities: total and partial collection of fronds, in this second case leaving all frond biomass less than 1 cm high in place. Holdfasts were not damaged. Total percent cover of thalli, frond density, mean frond length, and stand biomass for these experimental quadrats were statistically similar to values for control quadrats in the spring of 1994. These results suggest that one total harvest of fronds per year, done in late spring without damaging holdfasts, may give the highest sustainable yield of biomass. The effects of harvesting intensity on reproduction were variable and difficult to explain. Neither the appearance nor the abundance of cystocarpic fronds were affected by frond pruning, compared with control areas, but pruning did affect the appearance and the abundance of tetrasporic fronds. Partial pruning resulted in a longer presence of tetrasporic fronds, whereas total pruning was associated with their complete absence. Results are compared with those for the few other species of the Gigartinaceae for which experimental harvesting has been done.
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".