Three major mesoplanktonic communities resolved by in situ imaging in the upper 500 m of the global ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The distribution of mesoplankton communities has been poorly studied at global scale, especially from in situ instruments. This study aims to (1) describe the global distribution of mesoplankton communities in relation to their environment and (2) assess the ability of various environmental‐based ocean regionalizations to explain the distribution of these communities. Location Global ocean, 0–500 m depth. Time Period 2008–2019. Major Taxa Studied Twenty‐eight groups of large mesoplanktonic and macroplanktonic organisms, covering Metazoa, Rhizaria and Cyanobacteria. Methods From a global data set of 2500 vertical profiles making use of the Underwater Vision Profiler 5 (UVP5), an in situ imaging instrument, we studied the global distribution of large (>600 μm) mesoplanktonic organisms. Among the 6.8 million imaged objects, 330,000 were large zooplanktonic organisms and phytoplankton colonies, the rest consisting of marine snow particles. Multivariate ordination (PCA) and clustering were used to describe patterns in community composition, while comparison with existing regionalizations was performed with regression methods (RDA). Results Within the observed size range, epipelagic plankton communities were Trichodesmium ‐enriched in the intertropical Atlantic, Copepoda‐enriched at high latitudes and in upwelling areas, and Rhizaria‐enriched in oligotrophic areas. In the mesopelagic layer, Copepoda‐enriched communities were also found at high latitudes and in the Atlantic Ocean, while Rhizaria‐enriched communities prevailed in the Peruvian upwelling system and a few mixed communities were found elsewhere. The comparison between the distribution of these communities and a set of existing regionalizations of the ocean suggested that the structure of plankton communities described above is mostly driven by basin‐level environmental conditions. Main Conclusions In both layers, three types of plankton communities emerged and seemed to be mostly driven by regional environmental conditions. This work sheds light on the role not only of metazoans, but also of unexpected large protists and cyanobacteria in structuring large mesoplankton communities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".