Comparative analysis of photosynthetic properties in ice algae and phytoplankton inhabiting Franklin Bay, the Canadian Arctic, with those in mesophilic diatoms during CASES 03-04
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychrophilic phytoplankton and ice algae were collected in Franklin Bay, the Canadian Arctic, in late May 2004, and the photosynthetic properties were measured at 4°C using a pulse amplitude modulation fluorometer (Phyto-PAM). Rapid light curve measurements allowed for the assessment of the photosynthetic efficiency (α), maximal electron transport rate (rETRmax), and minimum saturating irradiance (Ek) in the samples. The values of α in phytoplankton (0.63-0.68) were much larger than those in ice algae (0.10-0.51), and the values of rETRmax in phytoplankton (4.6-6.7) were relatively larger than those in ice algae (1.8-4.3). However, Ek showed similar values in both samples and were around 10μmol photonsm^<-2>・s^<-1>. These values were systematically compared with those obtained from mesophilic marine diatoms (a centric diatom, Chaetoceros gracilis, and a pennate diatom, Phaeodactylum tricornutum) grown under various irradiances in the laboratory. The highly shade-adapted features of ice algae and phytoplankton were disclosed through this comparative analysis. It was also found that the non-photochemical quenching was much higher in psychrophilic samples than in mesophilic diatoms grown under moderate irradiance. Furthermore, in ice algae and phytoplankton, the decrease in rETR at high irradiances was prominent, showing that they were highly susceptible to photoinhibition. Our comparative analysis using psychrophilic phytoplankton, ice algae and two strains of mesophilic diatoms also revealed that the dependency on the xanthophyll cycle for the protection mechanisms of photosystems were remarkably different between the groups, indicating that the acclimation strategies to growth irradiances were variable between species. Such variable acclimation strategies could be one of the forces that results in a diverse algal flora that enables this region around Franklin Bay to be a productive area, even though the psychrophilic phytoplankton and ice algae are highly shade-adapted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".