MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2095119391 · doi:10.1002/2014gl062969

Enhanced sensitivity of oceanic CO<sub>2</sub> uptake to dust deposition by iron‐light colimitation

2015· article· en· W2095119391 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Levin Nickelsen, Andreas Oschlies

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMcGill University
KeywordsPhytoplanktonBiogeochemical cycleDeposition (geology)PhotosynthesisNutrientIron fertilizationNitrateGeotracesEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceOceanographyChemistrySeawaterBotanyEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The iron hypothesis suggests that in large areas of the ocean phytoplankton growth and thus photosynthetic CO2 uptake is limited by the micronutrient iron. Phytoplankton requires iron in particular for nitrate uptake, light harvesting, and electron transport in photosynthesis, suggesting a tight coupling of iron and light limitation. One important source of iron to the open ocean is dust deposition. Previous global biogeochemical modeling studies have suggested a low sensitivity of oceanic CO2 uptake to changes in dust deposition. Here we show that this sensitivity is increased significantly when iron‐light colimitation, i.e., the impact of iron bioavailability on light‐harvesting capabilities, is explicitly considered. Accounting for iron‐light colimitation increases the shift of export production from tropical and subtropical regions to the higher latitudes of subpolar regions at high dust deposition and amplifies iron limitation at low dust deposition. Our results reemphasize the role of iron as a key limiting nutrient for phytoplankton.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→