Size and stage composition of age class 0 Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) in the ice–water interface layer during winter/early spring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The condition and survival of Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ) strongly depends on sea ice conditions during winter. How krill utilize sea ice depends on several factors such as region and developmental stage. A comprehensive understanding of sea ice habitat use by krill, however, remains largely unknown. The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of the krill’s interaction with the sea ice habitat during winter/early spring by conducting large-scale sampling of the ice–water interface (0–2 m) and comparing the size and developmental stage composition of krill with the pelagic population (0–500 m). Results show that the population in the northern Weddell Sea consisted mainly of krill that were <1 year old (age class 0; AC0), and that it was comprised of multiple cohorts. Size per developmental stage differed spatially, indicating that the krill likely were advected from various origins. The size distribution of krill differed between the two depth strata sampled. Larval stages with a relatively small size (mean 7–8 mm) dominated the upper two metre layer of the water column, while larger larvae and AC0 juveniles (mean 14–15 mm) were proportionally more abundant in the 0- to 500-m stratum. Our results show that, as krill mature, their vertical distribution and utilization of the sea ice appear to change gradually. This could be the result of changes in physiology and/or behaviour, as, e.g., the krill’s energy demand and swimming capacity increase with size and age. The degree of sea ice association will have an effect on large-scale spatial distribution patterns of AC0 krill and on predictions of the consequences of sea ice decline on their survival over winter.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".