ArticleJournal of plankton research
Comparison of WP-2 and MOCNESS plankton samplers for measuring zooplankton biomass in the Barents Sea ecosystem.
Article in Journal of plankton research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zooplankton in the Barents Sea has been monitored on an annual autumn survey since the late 1980s, using vertical WP-2 and oblique Multiple Opening and Closing Net and Environmental Sensing System (MOCNESS) tows over the water column. Sampling with MOCNESS is used to describe the vertical distribution and more frequent sampling with WP-2 (~3:1) to describe the horizontal distribution. We use here a large cumulative data set of 874 MOCNESS and 2850 WP-2 stations with data on size-fractioned dry-weight biomass to compare the two zooplankton sampling gears. MOCNESS is consistently collecting more biomass of the large size fraction (>2 mm screen size) by ~20% and less of the small fraction (<1 mm) by ~30% compared to WP-2. This is interpreted to reflect more extrusion of small plankton and less avoidance by larger plankton with the MOCNESS. The data set has been collected by three research vessels. There was a difference in vertical speed in oblique tows of MOCNESS among the ships but no clear effect on volume filtered per unit time. This demonstrates operational consistency and suggests the use of a constant flow factor (distance per flowmeter count) when calculating results over the time series. The issue of calibration of traditional flowmeters on oblique tows needs further examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.