Stimulation of Alexandrium fundyense growth by bacterial assemblages from the Bay of Fundy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the influence of marine bacterial assemblages from the Bay of Fundy on Alexandrium fundyense str. CB301 growth. METHODS AND RESULTS: Bacterial assemblages were collected from the Bay of Fundy during an Alexandrium spp. bloom, serially diluted to extinction and inoculated into axenic CB301 cultures. Bacterial assemblages dramatically enhanced CB301 growth. Retrieval and analysis of 16S rDNA fragments revealed an Alteromonas sp. strain to be the only detectable bacterium in all assemblages that promoted A. fundyense and the sole bacterium found in the most dilute inoculum that promoted A. fundyense. While this bacterium has not yet been isolated, other isolates obtained from the assemblages did not stimulate A. fundyense, indicating that the observed stimulation was not a general effect of marine bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Bay of Fundy marine bacterial assemblages dominated by a member of the family Alteromonadaceae were found to dramatically stimulate growth of A. fundyense. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: These results show that native bacteria have the potential to dramatically promote the growth of A. fundyense and may play an important role in influencing A. fundyense dynamics in the Bay of Fundy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".