Depth distribution of zooplankton in relation to limnological gradients under different stratification and interannual regimes in a deep, tropical crater lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zooplankton vertical distribution was studied in Lake Bosumtwi to understand how spatial and temporal variations in the water column affected diurnal and nocturnal patterns. Biweekly samples were collected for 24 consecutive months at the deepest point from 2005 to 2006. Water column properties shaping habitat suitability, namely temperature, light intensity, dissolved oxygen and phytoplankton biomass, varied markedly with depth but less with season. Most zooplankton stayed in the epilimnion continuously and their distribution was unaltered by lake stratification, mixing and restratification. Species dwelt permanently in the epilimnion without any necessity to migrate. Reduced water column variability and resultant weak selective pressures suppressed greater dispersion of species. Chaoborus ceratopogones (Theobald) was the main invertebrate predator and performed upward and downward movements on a diel cycle. Competing prey species overlapped extensively in spatial and temporal degree of habitat use. Chaoborus, however, segregated in deep water during the day, thereby minimizing prey vulnerability and promoting coexistence among predators and prey. During night-time residence, prey species may be exposed to increased predation risk from Chaoborus but gains in reproductive potential in warm, food-rich surface waters may offset losses to mortality. Our results suggest that high degree of habitat constancy and consequently weak selective pressures contributed to the lowered behavioural responses of zooplankton. The persistently skewed distribution of zooplankton is adaptive to predation and competition and promotes species coexistence. This behaviour will optimize growth and reproductive benefits over the cost of descent to suboptimal conditions in deep water.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".