Determination of Algae and Macrophyte Species Distribution in Three Wastewater Stabilization Ponds Using Metagenomics Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study involved the evaluation of algae and macrophyte species distributions in three wastewater stabilization ponds (WSPs) at a wastewater treatment plant in Ontario, Canada, which has experienced high pH levels at the final effluent and excessive algae growth during the summer since 2003. From samples collected from the system, the relative abundances of specific algae and aquatic plant (macrophyte) taxa were assessed and correlated to water chemistry data. A strong shift from the dominance of green algae, chlorophyceae, in WSP#2, to the dominance of aquatic macrophytes, embryophyta, in WSP#4, was observed and corresponded to field observations. Correlation of the abundances to nutrient parameters suggested that the macronutrient rich conditions in WSP#2 allowed floating green algae to proliferate against macrophytes. In WSP#1 and WSP#4, macrophytes competed against algae and thrived, due to their adaptability to lower nutrient conditions. The pH increases occurred primarily in WSP#2 and were not buffered or reduced in WSP#1 and WSP#4. Two alternatives strategies for pH control were recommended for the system: decreasing algae growth in WSP#2 through duckweed seeding or macronutrient loading reduction; or designing and implementing a constructed wetland (CW) in WSP#4 with soil and vegetation to buffer pH prior to release.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".