MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220692344 · doi:10.1111/fwb.13896

The wind‐driven distribution of nearshore zooplankton in a stratified lake varies with their body size

2022· article· en· W4220692344 on OpenAlexafffund
Hélène Cyr, W. Gary Sprules

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZooplanktonTransectOceanographyEpilimnionEnvironmental scienceStratification (seeds)ShoreLatitudeBenthic zoneUpwellingGeologyEcologyHypolimnionEutrophication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wind‐driven forces are expected to concentrate zooplankton along downwind shores in lakes and provide food subsidy to nearshore food webs, but the bathymetric complexity of nearshore areas could result in high spatial variability. Here we test: (1) whether zooplankton accumulate downwind on windy days, and whether the magnitude of accumulation varies with zooplankton body size and with nearshore bathymetric slope; and (2) whether nearshore zooplankton are more spatially variable than offshore zooplankton, and whether their spatial variability is related to wind conditions and to zooplankton body size. This study focuses on zooplankton distribution at the whole‐lake basin and at intermediate (10 m–1 km) spatial scales. Zooplankton were sampled repeatedly along four c . 1 km transects at each of the upwind and downwind ends of a 22.1‐km 2 stratified lake basin. Two transects were oriented perpendicular to shore and two were parallel, one close to shore and the other further offshore. Zooplankton were sampled along each transect using an optical plankton counter morning and afternoon over 3 consecutive days, under a range of wind conditions, during early stratification (early June), mid‐stratification (mid‐July) and late stratification (late September). A 3D‐hydrodynamic model was used to help interpret the results. Small‐bodied zooplankton accumulated downwind during windy periods, reaching 8%–34% higher biomass than the basin‐wide average. This downwind accumulation of biomass was best explained by a partial (metalimnetic) upwelling displacing the epilimnion to the downwind end of the lake basin. Active upward movement of zooplankton is required to explain near‐surface biomass accumulation in this displaced water mass. Large‐bodied zooplankton accumulated in nearshore areas, regardless of wind conditions. Higher nearshore accumulation of large zooplankton was observed along transects following a shallow (1.9%) bathymetric slope but not along a steep (6%) slope. Large‐bodied zooplankton are more patchily distributed than small‐bodied zooplankton, both nearshore and offshore. The spatial variability of large zooplankton declined with increasing wind speed, but only at upwind sites. The patchy distribution of large‐bodied zooplankton is driven, or at least strongly influenced, by biological processes. The spatial distribution and patchiness of zooplankton varies with wind speed, zooplankton body size and nearshore bathymetry. Planktonic organisms are not passive drifters , and their patchiness and influx to certain parts of the lake during windy periods are both expected to affect the efficiency of trophic transfers in lake food webs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207