MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144514737

Effects of lime addition on the growth of fanwort in softwater systems

2011· article· en· W2144514737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William F. James

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aquatic Plant Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimeAlkalinityMacrophyteTotal inorganic carbonDominance (genetics)Biomass (ecology)PeriphytonBiologyPhotosynthesisBotanyEcologyAnimal scienceChemistryCarbon dioxide
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lime addition to softwater aquatic systems can shift inorganic carbon equilibrium to HCO 3 dominance by temporarily elevating pH. For submersed aquatic macrophytes restricted to free CO 2 uptake for photosynthesis, the addition of lime may be an effective means of suppressing growth and propagation. Fanwort ( Cabomba caroliniana Grey) is an invasive species to Midwestern and northeastern United States and Canada, predominantly found in low alkalinity, softwater systems, and could be susceptible to inorganic carbon limitation after lime application. Growth response of fanwort (invasive green phenotype) to hydrated lime addition was examined in replicate softwater (pH ~7; total alkalinity ~80 µM) experimental tanks to test this hypothesis. Modest lime concentrations of 55 and 160 µM were required to increase pH to 9 and 10, respectively, versus pH 7 in control tanks. Free CO 2 decreased from ~20 µM in the controls to ~0.1 and ~0.01 µM in tanks treated with 55 and 160 µM lime, respectively. Fanwort shoot biomass decreased to 36% and only 8% of the control mean biomass for tanks treated with 55 and 160 µM lime, respectively, indicating negative growth response to lime application. These patterns suggested that lime addition may be effective in suppressing fanwort growth.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aquatic Plant ManagementSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207