Are dams hotspots for <i>Didymosphenia geminata</i> blooms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. The diatom Didymosphenia geminata has emerged in recent years as a globally invasive species. Although considered native to North America, reports of nuisance blooms have increased over the last decade. 2. Previously, we determined that D. geminata was ubiquitous in two major headwaters of the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB), Alberta, Canada, but found it only bloomed at certain sites, including those immediately downstream from dam outfalls. To evaluate the role of dams in the abundance and blooming of D. geminata, we compared sites just below dams to unregulated upstream reference sites in six dammed rivers of the SSRB. 3. There was a high degree of seasonal variability in D. geminata abundance among sites, but statistical analyses showed a significant propensity for the diatom to have higher cell densities and an increased frequency of blooms at dam sites. 4. Important predictor variables of D. geminata abundance included dam presence, water clarity and total phosphorus concentration. When data from dam sites were analysed, a multiple regression model using mean discharge and pH as independent predictors explained 73% of the variation in D. geminata cell density. 5. Analysis of 3 years of data from one study river (Red Deer River) revealed consistently higher D. geminata cell densities at the dam site compared to the upstream reference. This analysis also showed that average cell density fluctuated by orders of magnitude from year‐to‐year. 6. Due to the ecological and aesthetic concerns regarding the global spread and blooming of D. geminata, we recommend that dams be viewed as key candidates for mitigating blooms in flow regulated systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".