Gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: organic, elemental, and energy contents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gelatinous and soft-bodied zooplankton (GZ) have long been considered to have low energetic value (‘trophic dead end hypothesis’) and be insufficient to sustain higher trophic levels. However, the nutritional composition and energy content of GZ are often poorly known for entire groups, ignoring species-, size-, and stage-specific differences. In this study, organic matter and elemental composition (carbon and nitrogen) were measured for >1000 specimens from 34 GZ species collected from neritic and oceanic waters of the Northeast Pacific between 2014 and 2020. Species included 3 gastropods, 16 hydrozoans, 2 nude ctenophores, 6 scyphozoans, 3 tentaculate ctenophores, and 4 thaliaceans. Organic content and elemental composition were used to estimate energy content using published conversion factors and differed between and within taxonomic classes. Size-dependent variability was shown for several species. Differences in organic content and elemental composition by development stage were observed in a salp and scyphomedusa species, highlighting the need to consider life cycle stages separately. The relative energy values of GZ were generally low and highly variable, although some taxa were comparable to crustaceans. The findings of the present study emphasise the need for a more detailed consideration of GZ in marine food web models and time series analyses, to take into account their inter- and intraspecific variability.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".