Field validation of an instantaneous estimate of in situ development and growth for marine copepod communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, efforts to develop a method for rapidly measuring the development and growth rates of marine zooplankton have met with little success. In recent years, however, a simple assay based on a crustacean moulting enzyme, chitobiase, has shown considerable promise. Previous laboratory studies have demonstrated that chitobiase activity is proportional to individual body size across three species of freshwater daphnids. Here, we show that a significant positive relationship exists between chitobiase activity and body length (and weight) across four species of marine copepods collected from natural populations in coastal British Columbia, Canada. We measured the decay rate of chitobiase in the water column and estimated in situ moulting and growth rates of the entire copepod community, which are in good agreement (5%–15%) with conventional moulting rates and literature-based estimates. This method can be applied at a relatively high spatial and temporal resolution and its utility is potentially analogous to conventional community-wide productivity estimates for phytoplankton and bacterioplankton in marine and freshwater systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".