MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015912914 · doi:10.4319/lo.2013.58.1.0254

On the roles of cell size and trophic strategy in North Atlantic diatom and dinoflagellate communities

2012· article· en· W2015912914 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Barton, Zoe V. Finkel, Ben A. Ward, David G. Johns, Michael J. Follows

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDinoflagellateMixotrophDiatomBiologyTrophic levelNutrientEcologyBloomEcological successionHeterotrophAlgaePlanktonPhytoplanktonChaetocerosAbundance (ecology)Bacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have examined the inter‐ and intra‐group seasonal succession of 113 diatom and dinoflagellate taxa, as surveyed by the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) in the North Atlantic, by grouping taxa according to two key functional traits: cell size (µg C cell −1 ) and trophic strategy (photoautotrophy, mixotrophy, or heterotrophy). Mixotrophic dinoflagellates follow photoautotrophic diatoms but precede their obligate heterotrophic counterparts in the succession because of the relative advantages afforded by photosynthesizing when light and nutrients are available in spring. The mean cell size of the sampled diatoms is smallest in the summer, likely because of the higher specific nutrient affinity of smaller relative to larger cells. Contrastingly, we hypothesize that mixotrophy diminishes the size selection based on nutrient limitation and accounts for the lack of a seasonal size shift among surveyed dinoflagellates. Relatively small, heterotrophic dinoflagellates (µg C cell −1 < 10 −3 ) peak after other, larger dinoflagellates, in part because of the increased abundance of their small prey during nutrient‐deplete summer months. The largest surveyed diatoms (µg C cell −1 > 10 −2 ) bloom later than others, and we hypothesize that this may be because of their relatively slow maximum potential growth rates and high internal nutrient storage, as well as to the slower predation of these larger cells. The new trait database and analysis presented here helps translate the taxonomic information of the CPR survey into metrics that can be directly compared with trait‐based models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207