Microzooplankton grazing before, during and after a cyanobacterial bloom in Vancouver Lake, Washington, USA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AME Aquatic Microbial Ecology Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsSpecials AME 64:163-174 (2011) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01514 Microzooplankton grazing before, during and after a cyanobacterial bloom in Vancouver Lake, Washington, USA Jennifer Boyer, Gretchen Rollwagen-Bollens*, Stephen M. Bollens School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, Washington 98686, USA *Corresponding author. Email: rollboll@vancouver.wsu.edu ABSTRACT: We conducted 16 dilution experiments from April 2008 to January 2009 to estimate microzooplankton grazing and intrinsic phytoplankton growth rates before, during and after a bloom of filamentous cyanobacteria in Vancouver Lake, Washington, USA. Intrinsic phytoplankton growth rates were low in April (~0.4 d−1), increased to a maximum (1.2 d−1) in May, and then declined to zero and became negative in June and early July, prior to a phytoplankton bloom dominated by cyanobacteria (Aphanizomenon flos-aquae). Phytoplankton growth rates rose as the bloom progressed, reaching rates >1.0 d−1 in August and September, then declined through autumn. Spring microzooplankton grazing rates were low (−0.3 to 0.3 d−1), then became substantially negative (−1.1 to −1.5 d−1) preceding the chlorophyll a bloom. During the bloom, grazing rates quickly increased to a maximum of 0.8 d−1 and remained high as the bloom declined. Microzooplankton grazing specifically on cyanobacteria was high in spring (1.0 d−1), negative just before the bloom (−0.7 d−1 to −1.0 d−1), and low in autumn (0.3 to 0.7 d−1). Negative grazing on cyanobacteria immediately before the bloom may have been due to preferential grazing on other co-occurring prey, thus enabling the bloom to form, while higher grazing rates on cyanobacteria, especially on Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, in autumn is likely to have contributed to the bloom's decline. These findings show that microzooplankton can potentially influence cyanobacterial blooms directly and indirectly through grazing. KEY WORDS: Microzooplankton · Grazing · Aphanizomenon flos-aquae · Harmful algal bloom · Eutrophication · Cyanobacteria Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Boyer J, Rollwagen-Bollens G, Bollens SM (2011) Microzooplankton grazing before, during and after a cyanobacterial bloom in Vancouver Lake, Washington, USA. Aquat Microb Ecol 64:163-174. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01514 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in AME Vol. 64, No. 2. Online publication date: September 01, 2011 Print ISSN: 0948-3055; Online ISSN: 1616-1564 Copyright © 2011 Inter-Research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it