Possible impacts of zooplankton grazing on dimethylsulfide production in the Antarctic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of zooplankton grazing on dimethylsulfide (DMS) and dissolved dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP d ) production was investigated in the Antarctic Ocean in January and February 2002. Dominant herbivorous macrozooplankton of this region, the Antarctic krill Euphausia superba and the tunicate Salpa thompsoni, were used in shipboard incubation experiments. The concentration of DMSP d + DMS increased in the water during incubation with krill. The production rate was 2.96 ± 2.78 nmol DMSP d + DMS·krill 1 ·h 1 (mean ± SD). In addition, the DMSP d + DMS production rate was linearly related to the ingestion rate of krill (r 2 = 0.664, p ≤ 0.01). Addition of salps to natural surface water, however, did not change the DMSP d + DMS concentrations. During the experiments, both animals fed on phytoplankton cells. The fecal pellets of krill contained broken phytoplankton cells, whereas those of salps contained unbroken cells. These results suggest that sloppy feeding by krill is a more likely mechanism for producing DMS and DMSP d than the direct ingestion of phytoplankton cells by salps. The decrease of DMS concentrations in the upper 200 m of the water column from January to February may be explained, in part, by changes in the composition of the macrozooplankton community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".