Drift Algal Accumulation in Ice Scour Pits Provides an Underestimated Ecological Subsidy in a Novel Antarctic Soft-Sediment Habitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ice scouring is one of the strongest agents of disturbance in nearshore environments at high latitudes. In depths, less than 20 m, grounding icebergs reshape the soft-sediment seabed by gouging furrows called ice pits. Large amounts of drift algae (up to 5.6 kg/m2) that would otherwise be transported to deeper water accumulate inside these features, representing an underestimated subsidy. Our work documents the distribution and dimensions of ice pits in Fildes Bay, Antarctica, and evaluates their relationship to the biomass and species composition of algae found within them. It also assesses the rates of deposition and advective loss of algae in the pits. The 17 ice pits found in the study area covered only 4.2% of the seabed but contained 98% of drift algal biomass, i.e., 60 times the density (kg/m2) of the surrounding seabed. Larger ice pits had larger and denser algal accumulations than small pits and had different species compositions. The accumulations were stable over time: experimentally cleared pits regained initial biomass levels after one year, and advective loss was less than 15% annually. Further research is needed to understand the impacts of ice scouring and subsequent algal retention on ecosystem functioning in this rapidly changing polar environment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".