MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SPECIES‐SPECIFIC VARIATION IN FATTY ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF FOUR PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES: DOES PHOSPHORUS SUPPLY INFLUENCE THE EFFECT OF LIGHT INTENSITY OR TEMPERATURE?<sup>1</sup>

2011· article· en· W2110192835 on OpenAlexaff
Maike Piepho, Michael T. Arts, Alexander Wacker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLight intensityAlgaeDiatomPhosphorusScenedesmusPhytoplanktonGreen algaeChlorophytaBotanyTrophic levelFatty acidPhotosynthesisEnvironmental chemistryAnimal scienceEcologyNutrientBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested, in the laboratory, the influence of light intensity, temperature, and phosphorus (P) supply on fatty acid (FA) concentrations of four freshwater algae: the green algae Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turpin) Bréb. and Chlamydomonas globosa J. Snow, the cryptophyte Cryptomonas ovata Ehrenb., and the diatom Cyclotella meneghiniana Kütz. We investigated the main and interactive effects of two variables on algal FA concentrations (i.e., light intensity and P supply or temperature and P supply). Interactive effects of light intensity and P supply were most pronounced in C. meneghiniana, but were also found in S. quadricauda and C. ovata. Changes in several saturated and unsaturated FA concentrations with light were more distinct in the low-P treatments than in the high-P treatments. Interactive effects of temperature and P supply on various FA concentrations were observed in all four species, but there was no consistent pattern. In lake ecosystems, P limitation often coincides with high light intensities and temperatures in summer. Therefore, it is important to examine how combinations of these environmental conditions affect FA concentrations of primary producers that are important sources of FAs for higher trophic levels.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations73
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207