Low particulate carbon to nitrogen ratios in marine surface waters of the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the Canada's Three Oceans and Joint Ocean Ice Study projects in the summers of 2007 and 2008, we measured particulate organic carbon to nitrogen ratios (POC:PON) throughout the euphotic zone in Subarctic and Arctic waters. Average depth‐integrated values (2.65 ± 0.19) in the Beaufort Sea and Canada Basin (BS‐CB domain) were much lower than both the Redfield ratio (6.6) and the average ratios (3.9 to 5.6) measured across other Arctic‐Subarctic domains. Average uptake ratios of C and N (ρC:ρN) were also lower (0.87 ± 0.14) in BS‐CB than in the other four domains (2.10 to 3.51). Decreasing POC:PON ratios were associated with low concentrations of phytoplankton C, reduced abundance of biogenic silica (bSiO2), a smaller relative contribution of the >5 µm fraction to total chlorophyll a and a larger relative contribution of small flagellates (<8 µm) to total phytoplankton C. In the subsurface chlorophyll a maximum (SCM) within the BS‐CB domain, phytoplankton C represented only ~13% of POC; and therefore, the presence of heterotrophic microbes may have decreased POC:PON. These ratios are supported by data obtained during other Arctic programs in 2006, 2008, and 2009. Previous work has suggested a link between freshening of surface waters and increasing dominance of picophytoplankton and bacterioplankton in the Canada Basin, and the low POC:PON ratios measured during this study may be a consequence of this shift. Our results have ramifications for the conversion between C‐ and N‐based estimates of primary productivity, and for biogeochemical modeling of marine Arctic waters.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".