Marine Mesocosms: Biological And Chemical Research In Experimental Ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Techniques developed for enclosing viable natural planktonic ecosystems pro vided the opportunity for prolonged and detailed investigation of dynamic events within the pelagic system of a known water body. Recent investigations into plankton ecology, using enclosure systems in dif ferent marine environments, are discussed in relation to the data obtained from the Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada, plastic-sphere experiments of 1960 and 1962. Three types of modern enclosure experiments are recognized: floating systems within nutrient levels maintained or running down, and benthic attached systems. The review largely discusses results from the two kinds of floating systems. Processes at several trophic levels have been investigated in enclosures. This review attempts to draw together details from all experimental systems to emphasize the enclosures' contribution to our understanding of planktonic systems. Enclosures made it possible to examine primary production processes, particularly in relation to inorganic nutrient availability and water-column sta bility. Recent experiments have used the understanding of these processes as a management technique in maintaining different planktonic systems. Relation ships between primary and secondary trophic levels are not always easy to inter pret, since the growth of primary carnivore populations can often determine the survival of zooplankton populations. Nevertheless, the development of co horts of herbivorous zooplankton has been followed in several enclosures, yield ing useful information on development times and production rates. In enclosed systems it is thus possible to directly relate tertiary level production to inorganic nutrient input, and to calculate production rates and exchange efficiencies at several trophic levels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".