Dissolved organic carbon (<scp>DOC</scp>) is essential to balance the metabolic demands of four dominant <scp>North‐Atlantic</scp> deep‐sea sponges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sponges are ubiquitous components of various deep‐sea habitats, including cold water coral reefs, and form deep‐sea sponge grounds. Although the deep sea is generally considered to be a food‐limited environment, these ecosystems are known to be hotspots of biodiversity and carbon cycling. To assess the role of sponges in the carbon cycling of deep‐sea ecosystems, we studied the carbon budgets of six dominant deep‐sea sponges of different phylogenetic origin, with various growth forms and hosting distinct associated microbial communities, in an ex situ aquarium setup. Additionally, we determined biomass metrics—planar surface area, volume, wet weight, dry weight (DW), ash‐free dry weight, and organic carbon (C) content—and conversion factors for all species. Oxygen (O2) removal rates averaged 3.3 ± 2.8 μmol O2 g DWsponge h−1 (mean ± SD), live particulate (bacterio‐ and phytoplankton) organic carbon removal rates averaged 0.30 ± 0.39 μmol C g DWsponge h−1 and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) removal rates averaged 18.70 ± 25.02 μmol C g DWsponge h−1. Carbon mass balances were calculated for four species and revealed that the sponges acquired 1.3–6.6 times the amount of carbon needed to sustain their minimal respiratory demands. These results indicate that irrespective of taxonomic class, growth form, and abundance of microbial symbionts, DOC is responsible for over 90% of the total net organic carbon removal of deep‐sea sponges and allows them to sustain themselves in otherwise food‐limited environments on the ocean floor.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".