MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075256676 · doi:10.2166/wst.2007.157

A comparison of biofilms from macrophytes and rocks for taste and odour producers in the St. Lawrence River

2007· article· en· W2075256676 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey J. Ridal, Susan B. Watson, M. Brian C. Hickey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaSt. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrophyteTasteBiofilmEnvironmental scienceFood scienceChemistryEcologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given their widespread and prolific annual development in the St. Lawrence River (SLR), macrophytes (i.e. submerged aquatic plants) represent large surface areas for biofilm growth and potentially important sites for associated production of taste and odour (T&O) compounds. We therefore evaluated the importance of submerged macrophytes and their associated biofilms for production of T&O compounds, 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) and geosmin (GM), compared with biofilms from adjacent rocks. We also tested the hypothesis that production of these compounds would differ between macrophyte species, based on the premise that they are not inert substrates but directly influence the communities that colonise their surfaces. Samples collected from transects across the SLR between Kingston and Cornwall, ON were dominated by the flat-bladed Vallisneria spp., and the leafed Myriophyllum spicatum, Elodea canadensis, Chara spp., Potamgeton spp., and Ceratophyllum spp. Overall, MIB and GM levels in biofilms ranged widely between samples. Expressed per g dry weight of biofilm, median levels from macrophyte were 50 (range 1-5000) ng MIB g(-1) and 10 (<1 to 580) ng GM g(-1) compared with 50 (range 5-970) ng MIB g(-1) and 160 (1-1600) ng GM g(-1) from rocks. Based on non-parametric statistical analysis, levels of GM were higher on a g dry weight basis in biofilms from rocks than macrophytes (P = 0.02), but MIB levels were similar (P = 0.94). However, when normalised for differences in substrate surface area (i.e. ng cm(-2)), levels of both MIB and GM were higher in biofilms from rocks than from macrophytes (P < 0.01). There were no discernable differences in MIB and GM concentrations from biofilms of different macrophytes based on either g dry weight sample or surface area (P > 0.05). Overlying water (OLW) concentrations ranged between 2-45 ng L(-1) for MIB and 5-30 ng L(-1) for GM and were not correlated with levels in adjacent biofilms. However, OLW concentrations peaked in shallow, low energy embayments consistent with enhanced production and release of MIB and GM in nearshore areas. The results support our previous work showing the importance of biofilms on various surfaces (rocks, macrophytes and zebra mussels) for MIB and GM production in the SLR, but suggest that inert surfaces like rocks are more productive sites per unit surface area than macrophytes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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