Influence of Current Velocity on Cadmium Accumulation by an Aquatic Moss and the Consequences for Its Use as a Biomonitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic mosses are widely used as biomonitors of contaminant concentrations in running waters. The results of several previous studies suggest that metal concentrations in mosses are influenced by current velocity and that this variable should be taken into account when mosses are used as metal biomonitors. However, in these studies, the purported influence of water velocity was confounded by other uncontrolled variables. We conducted our study to test the influence of current velocity on Cd accumulation by the riverine moss Fontinalis dalecarlica. We found no difference in Cd accumulation over 2 weeks by moss exposed in the laboratory to a constant Cd concentration over a wide range of current velocities (0.01-0.70 m s-1) that occur in the field. Similarly, the results of a field experiment, in which we exposed F. dalecarlica in a Cd-contaminated creek to four current velocities (0.05-0.50 m s-1), confirmed that in nature Cd accumulation by this moss is not influenced by current velocity. We show that a bioaccumulation model that ignores current velocity describes Cd accumulation by F. dalecarlica very well. Our results suggest that current velocity does not have to be considered when using aquatic mosses as metal biomonitors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".