Trophic pathways of phytoplankton size classes through the zooplankton food web over the spring transition period in the north‐west <scp>M</scp>editerranean <scp>S</scp>ea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of the relative contributions of phytoplankton size classes to zooplankton biomass is necessary to understand food‐web functioning and response to climate change. During the Deep Water formation Experiment (DEWEX), conducted in the north‐west Mediterranean Sea in winter (February) and spring (April) of 2013, we investigated phytoplankton‐zooplankton trophic links in contrasting oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions. Size fractionated particulate matter (pico‐POM, nano‐POM, and micro‐POM) and zooplankton (64 to >4000 μm) composition and carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios were measured inside and outside the nutrient‐rich deep convection zone in the central Liguro‐Provencal basin. In winter, phytoplankton biomass was low (0.28 mg m −3 ) and evenly spread among picophytoplankton, nanophytoplankton, and microphytoplankton. Using an isotope mixing model, we estimated average contributions to zooplankton biomass by pico‐POM, nano‐POM, and micro‐POM of 28, 59, and 15%, respectively. In spring, the nutrient poor region outside the convection zone had low phytoplankton biomass (0.58 mg m −3 ) and was dominated by pico/nanophytoplankton. Estimated average contributions to zooplankton biomass by pico‐POM, nano‐POM, and micro‐POM were 64, 28 and 10%, respectively, although the model did not differentiate well between pico‐POM and nano‐POM in this region. In the deep convection zone, spring phytoplankton biomass was high (1.34 mg m −3 ) and dominated by micro/nano phytoplankton. Estimated average contributions to zooplankton biomass by pico‐POM, nano‐POM, and micro‐POM were 42, 42, and 20%, respectively, indicating that a large part of the microphytoplankton biomass may have remained ungrazed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".