The Didymo story: the role of low dissolved phosphorus in the formation of<i>Didymosphenia geminata</i>blooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We outline, in chronological sequence, the events and findings over 25 years that have shaped our understanding of Didymosphenia geminata (Lyngbye) M. Schmidt blooms. Starting with the first appearance of D. geminata mats in streams on Vancouver Island in the late 1980s and followed years later by blooms in Iceland, South Dakota and Poland, D. geminata blooms were enigmatic for nearly 20 years. Early papers exploring whether blooms were caused by environmental change consistently failed to identify any specific factor(s) associated with their onset. Following the D. geminata outbreak in New Zealand in 2004 that seemed to result from an introduction of the species, the possibility that blooms that had previously occurred elsewhere in the world might also be explained by the introduction and movement among watersheds of a new variant with a bloom-forming tendency was touted and widely accepted. Now, however, the identification of very low soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP; below ∼2 ppb) as the proximate cause of bloom formation, has led to the more likely explanation that D. geminata blooms are the result of large-scale human intervention in climatic, atmospheric and edaphic processes that favour this ultra-oligotrophic species. In this new view, blooms of D. geminata are not simply due to the introduction of cells into new areas. Rather, bloom formation occurs when the SRP concentration is low, or is reduced to low levels by the process of oligotrophication. Mechanisms that potentially cause oligotrophication on global and regional scales are identified.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".