Bloom announcement: Late season cyanobacterial blooms co-dominated by Microcystis flos-aquae, Lyngbya birgei, and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae complex in Hamilton Harbour (Lake Ontario), an area of concern impacted by industrial effluent and residential wastewater.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hamilton Harbour is a large embayment (approximately 22 km2, over 2.8 × 108 m3, maximum depth 23 m, mean depth 13 m) at the western part of Lake Ontario with a long history of anthropogenic impacts, particularly from industrial effluent and residential wastewater [1]. Designated an area of concern (AOC) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1987, it continues to suffer from the buildup of hazardous chemicals in the water and sediments as well as eutrophication [3], [4], [5]. Several creeks (Spencer Creek, Redhill Creek, Grindstone Creek, Chedoke Creek) contribute to total water inflow (∼9.7 m3/sec) but a significant volume originates from two large wastewater treatment plants - the Woodward Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (∼40%) servicing the city of Hamilton and the Skyward Wastewater Treatment Plant servicing the city of Burlington (∼13%) [6]. The most significant water exchange between Hamilton Harbour and the rest of Lake Ontario is via a narrow channel on the east side of Hamilton Harbour, the Burlington Shipping Canal [1]. In 2017, cyanobacterial and harmful algal blooms (cHABs) were observed and characterized along Bayfront Park Beach in Hamilton Harbour, Ontario, Canada (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). The beneficial use of Bayfront Park Beach has been classified as impaired for beneficial use impairment (BUI) #8, Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae, and BUI #10, Beach Closings and Water Contact Sports, under the Hamilton Harbour's Remedial Action Plan. As part of Environment and Climate Change Canada's Great Lakes Action Plan, monthly sampling of whole water grabs, within and outside the blooms, occurred from July to November inclusive. In July and August a mixed community of chlorophytes and cyanophytes dominated the bloom, which exceeded 100 mg/L in phytoplankton total biomass (TB) (Fig. 3) [2]. By September, this already high TB increased dramatically beyond 3,000 mg/L before subsiding below 50 mg/L in October, a likely consequence of more turbulent waters in early autumn (Fig. 3). The community in September was dominated by Microcystis (60% TB M. flos-aquae and 16% TB M. aeruginosa) and Lyngbya (15% TB L. birgei). In November, TB exceeded 4,500 mg/L, with M. flos-aquae expanding its dominance (95% TB) while L. birgei was replaced by Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, albeit with reduced biomass (3% TB) (Fig. 3). It is suspected, based on spatiotemporal observations of bloom dynamics and circulation patterns within Hamilton Harbour, that phytoplankton biomass proliferates offshore and is transported by winds and currents to Bayfront Park Beach, where it is captured and accumulates within its crescent-shaped shoreline (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) [7]. Open in a separate window Fig. 1 Satellite imagery (aerial view) of Bayfront Park Beach, Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario (Ontario, Canada) where samples of the 2017 cyanobacterial and harmful algal blooms were collected. Note the crescent shape of Bayfront Park Beach and adjacent parkland, making it susceptible to localized accumulations of material.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».