Interannual variability in the relationship between in situ primary productivity and somatic crustacean productivity in a temperate fjord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 545:91-108 (2016) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11608 Interannual variability in the relationship between in situ primary productivity and somatic crustacean productivity in a temperate fjord Karyn D. Suchy1,*, John F. Dower1,2, Diana E. Varela1,2, Marcos G. Lagunas1 1Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 3N5, Canada 2School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada *Corresponding author: ksuchy@uvic.ca ABSTRACT: Simultaneous and precise measurements of primary and secondary productivity are required when examining energy transfer from phytoplankton to zooplankton. We examined the relationship between primary and crustacean productivity over 2 yr in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada, to determine how temporal variations in primary productivity influence crustacean productivity and trophic transfer efficiency (TTE). Primary productivity was measured via the 13C tracer method, while the crustacean moulting enzyme chitobiase was used to estimate community-level somatic crustacean productivity. Peak primary productivity occurred much earlier in 2010 (late April; 9.17 g C m-2 d-1) than in 2011 (mid-June; 5.01 g C m-2 d-1) due to a higher abundance of diatoms. Fatty acid analyses revealed that one of the dominant copepods, Calanus marshallae, was feeding on a higher proportion of diatoms than dinoflagellates (lowest DHA:EPA ratios) in May 2010 and June 2011. Crustacean productivity ranged between 0.01 and 0.65 g C m-2 d-1 over both sampling years. Average TTE was 14% in 2010 and 8% in 2011, indicating that the earlier peak in primary productivity in 2010 resulted in more efficient energy transfer from phytoplankton to crustacean zooplankton compared to 2011. Results from this study highlight the need for incorporating routine field estimates of crustacean productivity into oceanographic studies with the same resolution as primary productivity measurements. Together, these estimates are critical in terms of investigating the impact of a potential increase in the occurrence of mismatches between lower and higher trophic levels in predicted future warming scenarios. KEY WORDS: Crustacean productivity · Primary productivity · Chitobiase · Zooplankton · Trophic transfer efficiency · Saanich Inlet Full text in pdf format Supplementary material PreviousNextCite this article as: Suchy KD, Dower JF, Varela DE, Lagunas MG (2016) Interannual variability in the relationship between in situ primary productivity and somatic crustacean productivity in a temperate fjord. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 545:91-108. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11608 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 545. Online publication date: March 08, 2016 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2016 Inter-Research.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".