Influence of microbial community composition and metabolism on air−sea ΔpCO2 variation off the western Antarctic Peninsula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied CO 2 and O 2 dynamics in the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) waters in relation to ( 1) phytoplankton biomass, (2) microbial community primary production and respiration, and (3), for the first time, phytoplankton composition, during summer and fall in 3 consecutive years (2002, 2003 and 2004).The areal average of ΔpCO 2 (the difference between surface seawater and atmospheric partial pressure of CO 2 ) for the 3 yr was significantly negative (-20.04 ± 44.3 µatm, p < 0.01) during the summer to fall period in the region, possibly indicating a CO 2 sink.In the southern WAP (i.e.south of Anvers Island), ΔpCO 2 was significantly negative (-43.60 ± 39.06 µatm) during fall.In the northern WAP (north of Anvers Island), ΔpCO 2 values showed a more complex distribution during summer and fall (-4.96± 37.6 and 21.71 ± 22.39 µatm, respectively).Chlorophyll a (chl a) concentration averaged 1.03 ± 0.25 µg l -1 and was higher in the south of the peninsula.Phytoplankton composition influenced chl a concentration with higher and lower values for diatom-and phytoflagellate-dominated communities, respectively.A significant negative correlation existed between chl a and ΔpCO 2 .From incubation experiments performed in the northern WAP, respiration was low (averaging 5.1 mmol O 2 m -3 d -1 ), and the net community production (NCP) correlated negatively with ΔpCO 2 and positively with %O 2 saturation.However, despite the high NCP values measured, ΔpCO 2 was significantly positive in the northern WAP during the summer to fall period.Strong mixing and lower chl a concentration may explain this result.In contrast, ΔpCO 2 was significantly negative in the southern WAP, possibly because of high surface water chl a concentration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".