The trophic position of planktonic ciliate populations in the food webs of some East African lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trophic role of planktonic ciliates was investigated in the food webs of 17 East African lakes of different salinity and trophy. Experiments with 1μm latex beads showed that Cyclidium, Halteria, Dysteria, Aspidisca and Vorticella are bacterivores. Examination of food vacuole contents showed that the ciliate communities also included herbivores, carnivores, omnivores and mixotrophs. While some herbivorous ciliates grazed picoplanktonic algae or flagellates, large omnivores such as Frontonia and Linostoma ingested cyanobacterial filaments or preyed on other ciliates. Most predaceous ciliates were haptorids, and consumed other ciliates or metazoa. Growth rate estimates for planktonic ciliate populations in East African lakes ranged from 0.18 to 6.56d−1. From these growth rates and biomass, the estimated production of ciliate populations ranged from 5.9 to 2 335μg carbon l−1 d−1 and increased with lake trophic status and water electrical conductivity. Bacterivores, herbivores, carnivores and mixotrophs accounted for 36%, 39%, 21% and 4% of total production, respectively, over all the lakes. Zooplankton were the probable consumers of much of this ciliate production, although some taxa were consumed mostly within the microzooplankton community, presumably by other ciliates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".