Sensitivity of Phytoplankton Primary Production Estimates to Available Irradiance Under Heterogeneous Sea Ice Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Arctic ice scape is composed by a mosaic of ridges, hummocks, melt ponds, leads, and snow. Under such heterogeneous surfaces, drifting phytoplankton communities are experiencing a wide range of irradiance conditions and intensities that cannot be sampled representatively using single‐location measurements. Combining experimentally derived photosynthetic parameters with transmittance measurements acquired at spatial scales ranging from hundreds of meters (using a remotely operated vehicle, ROV) to thousands of meters (using a surface and underice trawl, SUIT), we assessed the sensitivity of water column primary production estimates to multiscale underice light measurements. Daily primary production calculated from transmittance from both the ROV and the SUIT ranged between 0.004 and 939 mgC·m−2·day−1. Upscaling these estimates at larger spatial scales using satellite‐derived sea ice concentration reduced the variability by 22% (0.004–731 mgC·m−2·day−1). The relative error in primary production estimates was two times lower when combining remote sensing and in situ data compared to ROV‐based estimates alone. These results suggest that spatially extensive in situ measurements must be combined with large‐footprint sea ice coverage sampling (e.g., remote sensing, aerial imagery) to accurately estimate primary production in ice‐covered waters. Also, the results indicated a decreasing error of primary production estimates with increasing sample size and the spatial scale at which in situ measurements are performed. Conversely, existing estimates of spatially integrated phytoplankton primary production in ice‐covered waters derived from single‐location light measurements may be associated with large statistical errors. Considering these implications is important for modeling scenarios and interpretation of existing measurements in a changing Arctic ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".