MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281570663 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.832684

Match/Mismatch Between Phytoplankton and Crustacean Zooplankton Phenology in the Strait of Georgia, Canada

2022· article· en· W4281570663 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karyn D. Suchy, Kelly Young, Moira Galbraith, R. Ian Perry, Maycira Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBloomSpring bloomOceanographyZooplanktonPhytoplanktonAlgal bloomOcean gyreEnvironmental sciencePhenologyChlorophyll aBiologyEcologySubtropicsGeologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Strait of Georgia, Canada, is an important region for numerous commercially and culturally important species (e.g., herring, salmon, and orcas), yet little is known about the links between lower trophic level (e.g. phytoplankton and zooplankton) phenology due to historical sampling gaps. Here, we present fourteen years (2003-2016) of data linking interannual variability in phytoplankton and zooplankton phenology in the Central Strait of Georgia, BC. Satellite-derived chlorophyll a (Chl a ) data were used to calculate spring bloom dynamics (bloom initiation, bloom intensity, and bloom magnitude). Average spring bloom initiation occurred during the last week of March in the Central Strait of Georgia. Bloom initiation occurred in mid-to-late February/early March during “early” Chl a bloom years (2004, 2005, and 2015) whereas initiation did not occur until the end of April during “late” bloom years (2007, 2008). Spring Chl a bloom initiation was significantly correlated with the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO; r = 0.75, p < 0.01) and spring sea surface temperature (SST; r = -0.70, p < 0.01); spring blooms occurred earlier during warm years. When all environmental variables were considered together, NPGO best explained variations in spring bloom initiation (Adj R 2 = 0.53, p < 0.01) and bloom magnitude (Adj R 2 = 0.57, p < 0.01), whereas stratification best explained variations in bloom intensity (Adj R 2 = 0.38, p < 0.05). Early Chl a blooms were associated with high crustacean abundance (maximum of > 1000 ind m -3 ) but low biomass (37.5 mg m -3 ). Independent of the Chl a data, hierarchical cluster analysis revealed similar groupings of years for crustacean abundance data. Most notably, community composition in cluster Group 2 (2004, 2005, and 2015; early Chl a bloom years), was comprised of a higher proportion of small crustaceans (e.g. non-calanoid copepods) compared to the other cluster groups. To our knowledge, this study provides the first evidence linking early spring Chl a bloom timing to a shift in the crustacean community towards smaller taxa in response to multiple warm events in the Strait of Georgia. Our results show that early Chl a blooms may potentially result in a mismatch between phytoplankton and large energy-rich crustacean zooplankton, with lower abundances of the latter. In contrast, average Chl a bloom years were optimal for large-bodied euphausiids, whereas late Chl a blooms were a match for some crustaceans (e.g., medium calanoid copepods), but not others (e.g., large calanoid copepods and amphipods). We hypothesize that early bloom years may result in poorer feeding conditions for juvenile salmon and other predators in the region.

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 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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207