MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173055058 · doi:10.1525/elementa.2019.00092

An estimation of the quantitative impacts of copepod grazing on an under sea-ice spring phytoplankton bloom in western Baffin Bay, Canadian Arctic

2021· article· en· W3173055058 on OpenAlexaffabout
Makoto Sampei, Louis Fortier, Patrick Raimbault, Kohei Matsuno, Yoshiyuki Abe, Bernard Quéguiner, Augustin Lafond, Marcel Babin, Toru Hirawake

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopepodPhytoplanktonGrazingZooplanktonBayGrazing pressureOceanographyEnvironmental scienceChlorophyll aProductivitySpring bloomDiatomAnimal scienceEcologyBiologyNutrientCrustaceanBotanyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to quantify the impact of copepod grazing on the productivity of phytoplankton during an under sea-ice spring phytoplankton bloom (USPB) in western Baffin Bay. To quantify positive and/or negative impacts of copepod grazing on primary production and the interaction between copepod grazing and phytoplankton species, we sampled seawater and zooplankton under the landfast sea ice every 2–3 days between May 24 and July 10, 2016. Samples were analyzed for estimation of primary production, chlorophyll-a (chl-a) concentration, diatom abundance, and copepod fecal pellet (FP) production/grazing rate. Analyses of chl-a concentration, primary production, and FP production/grazing rate revealed clear temporal changes and a mismatch between primary production and copepod consumption. The FP production/grazing rate reached a maximum (9.4/31.2 mg C m–2 d–1) on June 16 before the USPB phase and suddenly decreased to 0.7/2.4 mg C m–2 d–1 on June 21, despite an increase in primary production to 74.0 mg C m–2 d–1. The copepod grazing rate (3.7 mg C m–2 d–1) was low relative to primary production (344.6 mg C m–2 d–1) during the USPB phase (after June 20). While our estimates illustrate that copepod grazing did not limit the maximum daily primary production during the USPB, the low grazing pressure (2% of primary production) may have been an additional contributor to the reduction in total primary productivity at the end of the USPB period due primarily to the low supply of regenerated nitrogen-containing nutrients to drive regenerated production.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207