Fatty acid dynamics during the spring bloom in a High Arctic fjord: importance of abiotic factors versus community changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We followed the fatty acid composition of particulate organic matter (POM) in a High Arctic fjord (79°N; Svalbard, Norway) during and after the spring bloom. The content of essential polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) was highest (45% of total fatty acids) at the beginning of the bloom, well before the biomass maximum, and decreased linearly towards the end (30%). During the postbloom period, the concentrations of PUFAs remained stable, between 25% and 30%. Redundancy analysis was used to identify the environmental factors that explained the observed variability in the fatty acid composition of phytoplankton. A particular emphasis was put on the potential influence of high irradiances. During the spring bloom, nutrient availability (Si and N), as well as shifts in phytoplankton community composition and chlorophyll a, were shown to account for much of the pattern in fatty acid composition. During the postbloom period, particularly during periods of stratification, light had a pronounced effect on the fatty acid composition. In general, we found a decrease in the relative amount of PUFAs under high light intensities and nutrient limitation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".