Processes driving seasonal variability in DMS, DMSP, and DMSO concentrations and turnover in coastal Antarctic waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents new measurements of the concentrations and turnover rates of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP), and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in coastal waters near Palmer Station, Antarctica, during the spring and summer of 2012–2013. Using several novel analytical and experimental techniques, we document variability in DMS, DMSP, and DMSO (DMS/P/O) concentrations and quantify dominant production and removal terms in the mixed layer DMS budget. Our results demonstrate considerable seasonal variability in the concentration of DMS (range 0–20 nM), total DMSP (8–160 nM), and total DMSO (4–160 nM). Over the seasonal cycle, dissolved DMSP concentrations were well correlated with total DMSP concentrations and the abundance of Phaeocystis antarctica , while DMSO concentrations (total and dissolved) were well correlated with DMS concentrations. DMSP cleavage from the dissolved pool (mean rate = 5.5 nM d −1 ) and release from microzooplankton grazing (mean 5.6 nM d −1 ) were the dominant sources of DMS, with smaller DMS production rates associated with DMSO reduction from the dissolved pool (mean 2.6 nM d −1 ) and krill grazing (mean 0.82 nM d −1 ). Specific rate constants for DMSP cleavage were inversely related to net primary production. Bacterial uptake was a primary contributor to DMS removal (mean −12 nM d −1 ), and we observed a significant correlation between bacterial production and gross DMS loss rate constants. Estimated sea‐air flux and photo‐oxidation constituted secondary DMS sinks. Our experimental and analytical methods provide insight into the DMS/P/O cycle at Palmer Station, and a starting point for future studies examining inter‐annual DMS/P/O variability in coastal Antarctic 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 | 0.000 | 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".