Horizontal and vertical distribution patterns, retention rates, and population dynamics of zooplankton on Western Bank, Scotian Shelf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assess the importance of retention rates and local production to the concentration of zooplankton on Western Bank, Scotian Shelf, during September and October 1998. We do so using (i) particle retention rates derived from an array of 25 current meters and inferences from hydrographic structure; (ii) observations on the horizontal and vertical distribution of zooplankton and ichthyoplankton; and (iii) a simple projection-matrix model of the population dynamics of two copepod species, Centropages typicus and Pseudocalanus spp. Zooplankton biomass and adult stages of copepods were more abundant in surface waters on the bank (p < 0.05) at broad (25 km) spatial scales. Zooplankton was correlated with ichthyoplankton abundance at this scale (r > 0.5, p < 0.001), a result of local production of both zooplankton and fish on the bank. The time-dependent anticyclonic circulation around Western Bank was variable, and particle retention rates were 18 and 33% for 20 days at 12.5 and 28.5 m, respectively. The population model showed that both C. typicus and Pseudocalanus spp. are capable of increasing their population size despite advective loss and mortality rates approaching 10%·day-1. We conclude that local production exceeding advective loss rates can explain the high concentrations of zooplankton on Western Bank.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".