Processes controlling aggregate formation and distribution during the Arctic phytoplankton spring bloom in Baffin Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decades, the Arctic Ocean has been affected by climate change, leading to alterations in the sea ice cover that influence the phytoplankton spring bloom, its associated food web, and therefore carbon sequestration. During the Green Edge 2016 expedition in the central Baffin Bay, the phytoplankton spring bloom and its development around the ice edge was followed along 7 transects from open water to the ice-pack interior. Here, we studied some of the processes driving phytoplankton aggregation, using aggregate and copepod distribution profiles obtained with an underwater vision profiler deployed at several stations along the transects. Our results revealed a sequential pattern during sea ice retreat in phytoplankton production and in aggregate production and distribution. First, under sea ice, phytoplankton started to grow, but aggregates were not formed. Second, after sea ice melting, phytoplankton (diatoms and Phaeocystis spp. as the dominant groups) benefited from the light availability and stratified environment to bloom, and aggregation began coincident with nutrient depletion at the surface. Third, maxima of phytoplankton aggregates deepened in the water column and phytoplankton cells at the surface began to degrade. At most stations, silicate limitation began first, triggering aggregation of the phytoplankton cells; nitrate limitation came later. Copepods followed aggregates at the end of the phytoplankton bloom, possibly because aggregates provided higher quality food than senescing phytoplankton cells at the surface. These observations suggest that aggregation is involved in 2 export pathways constituting the biological pump: the gravitational pathway through the sinking of aggregates and fecal pellets and the migration pathway when zooplankton follow aggregates during food foraging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".