Functional feeding response of Nordic and Arctic krill on natural phytoplankton and zooplankton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Krill species play a pivotal role in energetic transfer from lower to upper trophic levels. However, functional feeding responses, which determine how food availability influences ingestion rates, are still not well defined for northern krill species. Here, we estimated and compared the functional feeding responses on natural communities of phytoplankton and mesozooplankton of two coexisting species, Meganyctiphanes norvegica and Thysanoessa raschii. We tested the influence of the presence of phytoplankton on the ingestion rate and the selectivity of both krill species when feeding on zooplankton prey. We performed a series of feeding experiments using increasing concentrations of natural phytoplankton (64 taxa; 2 to >50 μm) and mesozooplankton (28 taxa; ~100–2000 μm) assemblages and the latter in presence and absence of phytoplankton. Results revealed that both krill species exhibited a Holling type III feeding response on phytoplankton. However, T. raschii was able to exploit efficiently the highest phytoplankton concentrations. Our experiments highlighted that the presence of phytoplankton modified the functional feeding response on mesozooplankton preys of M. norvegica, but not that of T. raschii. Similarly, the presence of phytoplankton influenced the feeding selectivity on mesozooplankton preys, although both species showed contrasting selectivity patterns. In addition, we estimated the energy needs in relation to the daily rations. T. raschii satisfied its energy needs by feeding either on high phytoplankton concentrations or on low mesozooplankton densities, whereas M. norvegica did not cover its metabolic costs efficiently by feeding on phytoplankton only, even at high phytoplankton concentrations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".