MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2178311677 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2015-0151

The responses of phytoplankton communities to elevated CO<sub>2</sub> show seasonal variations in the highly eutrophic Lake Taihu

2015· article· en· W2178311677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoli Shi, Xu-Hui Zhao, Min Zhang, Zhou Yang, Ping Xu, Fanxiang Kong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrocosmPhytoplanktonEutrophicationNutrientEnvironmental scienceHypolimnionSpring bloomEnvironmental chemistrySeasonalityMicrocystisEcologyMicrocystis aeruginosaBloomAnimal scienceCyanobacteriaChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From April 2012 to January 2013 (over four seasons), in situ microcosm experiments were conducted in Lake Taihu, perturbed over a range of pCO 2 scenarios (270, 380, and 750 μatm; 1 atm = 101.325 kPa). The influence of CO 2 level on microcosms was greatest during the spring because of the high growth rate of phytoplankton. In this season, rising CO 2 levels caused a pH reduction, and the maximum reduction was 0.6 units when CO 2 level was enhanced from the present level to 750 μatm. The doubling of CO 2 level could increase the net primary production (NPP) by 65% during spring when the concentrations of other nutrients were maintained. The rise of NPP could cause a decline of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentration, and CO 2 enrichment might mitigate the extent of this decline. Meanwhile, higher CO 2 may slow or prevent a loss of diversity of phytoplankton in microcosms in this season. During the other three seasons, Microcystis predominated, and the percentage of cyanobacteria did not alter with the change of CO 2 . We did not observe a significant increase in the abundance of any taxa with the rise of CO 2 during the in situ microcosm experiments.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→