Pelagic production and the recruitment of juvenile polar cod Boreogadus saida in Canadian Arctic seas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous work found that an earlier ice breakup favors the recruitment of juvenile polar cod (Boreogadus saida) by enabling early hatchers to survive and reach a large size by late summer thanks to a long growth season. We tested the hypothesis that, in addition to a long growth season, an earlier ice breakup provides superior feeding conditions for young polar cod by enhancing microalgal and zooplankton production over the summer months. Ice cover and surface chlorophyllawere derived from satellite observations, and zooplankton and juvenile cod biomass were estimated by hydroacoustics in ten regions of the Canadian Arctic over a period of 11 years. Earlier breakups resulted in earlier phytoplankton blooms. Zooplankton backscatter in August increased with earlier breakup and bloom, and plateaued at chlorophylla > 1 mg m−3. Juvenile cod biomass in August increased with an earlier breakup, and plateaued at a zooplankton backscatter > 5 m2nmi−2, supporting the hypothesis that higher food availability promotes the growth and survival of age-0 fish in years of early ice melt. However, there was little evidence that late summer biomass of either zooplankton or age-0 polar cod benefitted from ice breakup occurring prior to June. On average, zooplankton standing stock was similar in the Southern Beaufort Sea and the North Water-Lancaster Sound polynya complex, but juvenile cod biomass was higher in the Beaufort Sea. Intense avian predation could explain the lower biomass of juvenile cod in the polynya complex, confirming its reputation as a biological hotspot for energy transfer to higher trophic levels.
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 | 0.002 | 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".