Food sources and lipid retention of zooplankton in subarctic ponds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Subarctic ponds are seasonal aquatic habitats subject to short summers but often have surprisingly numerous planktonic consumers relative to phytoplankton productivity. Because subarctic ponds have low pelagic productivity but a high biomass of benthic algae, we hypothesised that benthic mats provide a complementary and important food source for the zooplankton. To test this, we used a combination of fatty acid and stable isotope analyses to evaluate the nutritional content of benthic and pelagic food and their contributions to the diets of crustacean zooplankton in 10 Finnish subarctic ponds. 2. Benthic mats and seston differed significantly in total lipids, with seston (62.5 μg mg−1) having approximately eight times higher total lipid concentrations than benthic mats (7.0 μg mg−1). Moreover, the two potential food sources differed in their lipid quality, with benthic organic matter completely lacking some nutritionally important polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), most notably docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid. 3. Zooplankton had higher PUFA concentrations (27–67 μg mg−1) than either of the food sources (mean benthic mats: 1.2 μg mg−1; mean seston: 9.9 μg mg−1), indicating that zooplankton metabolically regulate their accumulation of PUFA. In addition, when each pond was evaluated independently, the zooplankton was consistently more 13C-depleted (δ13C −20 to −33‰) than seston (−23 to −29‰) or benthic (−15 to −27‰) food sources. In three ponds, a subset of the zooplankton (Eudiaptomus graciloides, Bosmina sp., Daphnia sp. and Branchinecta paludosa) showed evidence of feeding on both benthic and planktonic resources, whereas in most (seven out of 10) ponds the zooplankton appeared to feed primarily on plankton. 4. Our results indicate that pelagic primary production was consistently the principal food resource of most metazoans. While benthic mats were highly productive, they did not appear to be a major food source for zooplankton. The pond zooplankton, faced by strong seasonal food limitation, acquires particular dietary elements selectively.
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) | 0.003 | 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".