An ecological study of a massive bloom of toxigenic Pseudo‐nitzschia cuspidata off the Washington State coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 2004 a large, nearly monospecific diatom bloom of Pseudo‐nitzschia cuspidata off the coast of the state of Washington reached cell concentrations of 6.1 × 10 6 cells L −1 and produced maximum particulate domoic acid (pDA), dissolved domoic acid (dDA), and cellular domoic acid concentrations of 43 nmol L −1 1, 4 nmol L −1 , and 63 pg cell −1 , respectively. This bloom co‐dominated the phytoplankton assemblage with the euglenoid Eutreptiell a sp. in the Juan de Fuca eddy region, a known initiation site for toxigenic Pseudo‐nitzschia blooms. Two isolates of P. cuspidata collected during separate cruises produced domoic acid (DA) in culture. During the September 2004 survey, 84% of the stations (n = 98) had detectable Pseudo‐nitzschia and 78% had detectable pDA. There were no significant correlations between either pDA or cellular DA and ambient concentrations of macronutrients; however, when considering only those stations where Pseudo‐nitzschia was present, pDA was positively correlated with chlorophyll a and negatively correlated with temperature (p ≪ 0.01) at both 1‐ and 5‐m depths. Correlations between cellular DA concentrations and total bacteria or cyanobacteria abundances were not significant. Variable ratios of pDA:dDA in the eddy region suggest that DA release was under cellular regulation by Pseudo‐nitzschia . Stations where dissolved Fe concentrations were limiting (,0.5 nmol L −1 ) had the highest Pseudo‐nitzschia abundances and pDA and cellular DA values. These results provide enticing field evidence of the role of Fe limitation in controlling cellular DA 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".