Influence of nutrients, hexadecane, and temporal variations on nitrification and exopolysaccharide composition of river biofilms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofilms were cultivated on polycarbonate strips in rotating annular reactors using South Saskatchewan River water during the fall of 1999 and the fall of 2001. The reactors were supplemented with carbon (glucose), nitrogen (NH(4)Cl), phosphorus (KH(2)PO(4)), or combined nutrients (CNP), with or without hexadecane. The impact of these treatments on nitrification and on the exopolysaccharide composition of river biofilms was determined. The results showed that the biofilms had higher NH4(+) oxidation, NO3(-) production, and N2O production activities in fall 1999 than fall 2001 when grown with CNP but had higher activities in fall 2001 than fall 1999 when grown with individual nutrients. The exopolysaccharide amounts and proportions were generally higher in fall 1999 than fall 2001, as a consequence of the higher nutrient levels in the river water in the first year of this study. The addition of P and especially CNP stimulated NH4(+) oxidation by the biofilms, showing a P limitation in this river ecosystem. The presence of hexadecane negatively affected these activities and lowered the amounts of exopolysaccharides in CNP and P biofilms in fall 1999 but increased the biofilm activities and exopolysaccharide amounts in CNP biofilm in fall 2001. Antagonistic, synergistic, and independent effects between nutrients and hexadecane were also observed. This study demonstrated that the biofilm autotrophic nitrification activity in the South Saskatchewan River was limited by P, that this activity and the exopolysaccharide amounts and proportions were dependent on the nutrient concentrations in the river water, and suggested that exopolysaccharides may play a protective role for biofilm microorganisms against toxic pollutants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".