MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2035017518 · doi:10.1139/f06-062

Impact-recovery patterns of water quality in temporary wetlands after fire retardant pollution

2006· article· en· W2035017518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David G. Angeler, José M. Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater qualityWetlandMacrophyteHydrology (agriculture)Fire retardantTrophic levelWater pollutionEcologyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire retardants, which are used in wildland fire prevention and extinguishing operations, can cause eutrophi cation of surface waters. We measured water quality in artificially constructed outdoor ponds over three hydrological cycles to determine impact-recovery trajectories in retardant-contaminated, temporary wetlands. We used a multiple before–after control–impact (MBACI) design to determine the effects of application rates that are used in grasslands (1 L·m–2) and scrublands (3 L·m–2). Retardant application caused a significant increase in the trophic status of the ponds in the postcontamination period (second and third hydrological cycle) relative to the precontamination period (first hydrological cycle). The retardant clearly affected nutrients and indirectly affected chlorophyll a, pH, dissolved oxygen, and Secchi transparency, resulting in a shift from clear water to turbid water stable states. Univariate analyses showed that water quality variables showed distinct recovery trajectories, as influenced by natural, seasonal changes (chiefly water level fluctuations). Nonmetric, multidimensional scaling analyses suggest that water quality did not return to precontamination levels after two hydrological cycles in the retardant-treated ponds. Water quality affected by retardant contamination appeared to maintain wetlands in hysteresis for at least two hydrological cycles and prevented them from returning to the clear water, submerged macrophyte-dominated state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→