Carbon acquisition mechanisms by planktonic desmids and their link to ecological distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test if different inorganic carbon (Ci) uptake mechanisms underlie the ecological distribution pattern of planktonic desmids, we performed pH-drift experiments with 12 strains, belonging to seven species, originating from lakes of different pH. Staurastrum brachiatum Ralfs and Staurodesmus cuspidatus (Ralfs) Teil. var. curvatus (W. West) Teil., species confined to acidic, soft water habitats, showed remarkably different behavior in the pH drift experiments: S. brachiatum appeared to use CO2 only, whereas Staurodesmus cuspidatus appeared to use HCO3 as well. Staurastrum chaetoceras (Schr.) Smith and Staurastrum planctonicum Teil, species well-known for their abundant occurrence in alkaline waters, were the most effective at using HCO3. Other species, to be encountered in both slightly acidic and slightly alkaline waters, took an intermediate position. Experiments using specific inhibitors suggested that Cosmarium abbreviatum Rac. var. planctonicum W. & G.S. West and S. brachiatum use CO2 by an active CO2 uptake mechanism, whereas S. chaetoceras and Staurodesmus cuspidatus showed an active HCO3 uptake pattern. Most likely, these active uptake mechanisms make use of H+-ATPase, as none of the desmids expressed significant carbonic anhydrase activity. A series of strains of Staurastrum planctonicum isolated from different habitats, all clustered in between the species using HCO3, but no further differentiation was observed. Therefore, desmids cannot be simply characterized as exclusive CO2 users, and the ecological distribution pattern of a desmid species does not unequivocally link to a certain Ci uptake mechanism. Nevertheless, there does appear to be a general ecological link between a species' Ci uptake mechanism and its ecological distribution.Key words: pH drift, desmids, isolate variation, inorganic carbon acquisition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".