Winter and summer storms modify chlorophyll relationships with nutrients in seasonally ice‐covered lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At broad spatial scales, primary productivity in lakes is known to increase in concert with nutrients, and variables that may disrupt or modify the tight coupling of nutrients and algae are of increasing interest, particularly for those shifting with climate change. Storms may disrupt algae–nutrient relationships, but the expected effects differ between winter and summer seasons, particularly for seasonally ice‐covered lakes. In winter, storms can dramatically change the under‐ice light environment, creating light limitation that disrupts algae–nutrient relationships. Further, storms can bring both snow that blocks light and also wind that blows snow off of ice. In open water conditions, storms may promote turbulence and external nutrient loading. Here, we test the hypotheses that winter and summer storms differentially affect algae–nutrient relationships across 84 seasonally ice‐covered lakes included in the Ecology Under Lake Ice dataset. While nutrients explained most of the variation in chlorophyll across these lakes, we found that secondary drivers differed between seasons. Under‐ice chlorophyll was higher under a variety of precipitation and wind conditions that tend to promote snow‐free clear ice, highlighting the importance of light as a limiting factor for algal growth during winter. In summer, higher water temperatures and storms corresponded with higher chlorophyll. Our study suggests that examining ice‐covered lakes in a gradient from the perennial ice cover of the poles to the intermittent ice cover of lower latitudes would yield key information on the shifts in light and nutrient limitation that control algal biomass.
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) | 0.008 | 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".