Effects of experimentally induced cyanobacterial blooms on crustacean zooplankton communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY 1. Large in situ enclosures were used to study the effects of experimentally induced cyanobacterial blooms on zooplankton communities. A combination of N and P was added to shallow (2 m) and deep enclosures (5 m) with the goal of reducing the TN : TP ratio to a low level (∼5 : 1) to promote cyanobacterial growth. After nutrient additions, high biomass of cyanobacteria developed rapidly in shallow enclosures reaching levels only observed during bloom events in eutrophic lakes. 2. In the shallow enclosures, particulate phosphorus (PP) was on average 35% higher in comparison with deep enclosures, suggesting that depth plays a key role in P uptake by algae. Phytoplankton communities in both deep and shallow enclosures were dominated by three cyanobacteria species – Aphanizomenon flos‐aquae , Anabaena flos‐aquae and Microcystis aeruginosa – which accounted for up to 70% of total phytoplankton biomass. However, the absolute biomass of the three species was much higher in shallow enclosures, especially Aphanizomenon flos‐aquae . The three cyanobacteria species responded in contrasting ways to nutrient manipulation because of their different physiology. 3. Standardised concentrations of the hepatotoxic microcystin‐LR increased as a result of nutrient manipulations by a factor of four in the treated enclosures. Increased biomass of inedible and toxin producing cyanobacteria was associated with a decline in Daphnia pulicaria biomass caused by a reduction in the number of individuals with a body length of >1 mm. Zooplankton biomass did not decline at moderate cyanobacteria biomass, but when cyanobacteria reached high biomass large cladocerans were reduced. 4. Our results demonstrate that zooplankton communities can be negatively affected by cyanobacterial blooms and therefore the potential to use herbivory to reduce algal blooms in such eutrophic lakes appears limited.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".