MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163728418 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620200222

Response of zooplankton communities to liquid creosote in freshwater microcosms

2001· article· en· W2163728418 on OpenAlexaff
Paul K. Sibley, Megan L. Harris, Ketut T. Bestari, Tracey A. Steele, Richard D. Robinson, Robert W. Gensemer, Kristen E. Day, Keith R. Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrocosmZooplanktonCladoceraEcologyBiologyCreosoteBranchiopodaPopulationAquatic ecosystemEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the response of phytoplankton communities in aquatic microcosms to single applications of liquid creosote. The creosote was applied to 14 microcosms at concentrations ranging from 0.06 to 109 mg/L. Two microcosms served as controls. Phytoplankton samples were collected from each microcosm one week and 1 d before treatment and at 7 and 21 d after treatment. Temporal changes (response-recovery) in phytoplankton community composition were assessed with principal response curves. Creosote had no direct toxic effect on the phytoplankton community based on total abundance and number of taxa. Population levels declined in all treatments between day -1 and day 7, but this trend mirrored a similar decline in the control microcosms. At both 7 and 21 d after treatment, population densities and number of taxa in most treatments exceeded those in the controls and exhibited a parabolic relationship relative to creosote concentration. This relationship was most pronounced at 21 d, at which time population densities and number of taxa at intermediate concentrations were up to twice those at low and high concentrations. This response pattern seems to represent an indirect response to impacts on zooplankton and a corresponding reduction in grazing pressure. In contrast, total algal biomass declined 52 to 97% relative to the controls at all but the lowest creosote concentration at 7 d. This apparent decline was due to a significant proliferation of the alga Closterium moniliforme in the controls and low creosote concentration. At 21 d, no difference was found in total biomass between treated and control microcosms. The results of this study suggest that creosote does not pose a significant direct risk to phytoplankton at concentrations likely to be encountered in most contaminated aquatic environments; however, stimulation of algal populations could occur in situations of long-term chronic exposure or spill events that remove predatory zooplankton populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207