Patterns of Development and Abnormalities among Tadpoles in a Constructed Wetland Receiving Treated Wastewater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructed wetlands are promoted for effectiveness at treating wastewater and potential value as wildlife habitat; however, wildlife performance studies in treated wastewater wetlands are limited. We used repeated surveys of larval amphibians along three wetland systems and four reference sites to test the hypothesis that bullfrog tadpoles exposed to direct inputs of treated wastewater develop slower, show a higher frequency of abnormalities, and are smaller at metamorphosis compared to tadpoles from reference ponds. Bullfrog tadpoles from wastewater wetlands were similar in size at metamorphosis compared to tadpoles from reference sites; however, they did show a much higher frequency of abnormalities including severe edema, scoliosis, and extreme calcinosis of soft tissues. Calcinosis was novel to the literature on amphibian abnormalities, the most frequent abnormality, and restricted exclusively to treatment wetlands. Within the constructed wetlands, tadpole development was slower and the frequency of scoliosis and calcinosis was higher in those cells receiving direct inputs of treated wastewater. Our results suggest that portions of constructed wetlands that directly receive treated wastewater may be poor amphibian habitat.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".