MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NUTRIENT LIMITATION REDUCES FOOD QUALITY FOR ZOOPLANKTON:<i>DAPHNIA</i>RESPONSE TO SESTON PHOSPHORUS ENRICHMENT

2001· article· en· W2117089858 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James J. Elser, Kazuhide Hayakawa, Jotaro Urabe

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsSestonZooplanktonDaphniaNutrientPhytoplanktonAlgaeBranchiopodaBiologyPhosphorusEcologyPlanktonCladoceraEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratory studies are increasingly indicating that the quality of nutrient-limited algae is suboptimal for zooplankton production. However, little is known about how quality is affected by nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in more natural situations. To test for phosphorus (P) limitation of zooplankton growth under realistic food conditions, we performed a set of 5-d experiments using Daphnia dentifera and suspended particulate matter (seston) from three lakes at the Experimental Lakes Area (Ontario, Canada). Neonate Daphnia fed for 6 h per day on freshly collected seston enriched or unenriched with PO4 and spent the rest of the day feeding on unaltered natural seston. PO4 enrichment did not affect food abundance or concentrations and composition of essential fatty acids but dramatically lowered seston C:P ratio and significantly stimulated Daphnia growth. These results demonstrate that, even with field-collected seston, the effects of algal phosphorus limitation can extend to herbivores through reduced food quality.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations270
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207