ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2024
Effects of Rock Type and Food Availability on Bioerosion by the Purple Sea Urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus.
Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purple sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) profoundly impact nearshore rocky coasts through their feeding habits. Their intense grazing sculpts substrates through bioerosion using their teeth and spines and controls the alternative stable state dynamic between kelp bed and urchin barrens. These states have contrasting food availability for sea urchins, with abundant food in kelp beds and scarce food in barren grounds. However, the relationship between food availability and bioerosion is unknown. We predicted that when kelp is available, it would ameliorate the action of teeth on the substrate. Our 11-week long, 2 × 2 factorial experiment, crossed community state (kelp present vs absent) and rock type (sandstone vs mudstone). We also quantified the contribution of spine abrasion to bioerosion on the two rock types. The bioerosion rates did not differ between treatments with and without kelp. Although there was no significant difference in net bioerosion between the rock types, there was a large difference between the proportion of bioerosion from teeth vs spine abrasion. Approximately a third of the sandstone bioerosion was from spines whereas less than 2% of mudstone bioerosion could be attributed to spines. As anticipated, growth of sea urchins fed kelp ad-libitum was higher than food-limited sea urchins. Surprisingly, sea urchins on mudstone (which has a higher organic component) grew faster than sea urchins on sandstone. Although bioerosion rates may not differ on a per-urchin basis between community states, the sea urchin population densities between kelp beds and urchin barrens likely causes a difference in net bioerosion between these communities. Our results point to the importance of lithology on the mechanics of sea urchin bioerosion. Differences in texture, grain size, and hardness of rock substrates undoubtedly contribute to bioerosion rates and dynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.