The phytoplankton community of Lake Ontario in 2008: Structure, biodiversity and long term changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phytoplankton community of Lake Ontario was assessed during April, July and September 2008 as part of the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI) framework. Results were also compared with historic surveys that began in 1970. A total of 320 unique species were identified during 2008, the vast majority being considered ‘rare’ or ‘less common’. The biomass was found to be, on average, 1.6 g m−3 in spring, 3.0 g m−3 in early summer and 2.4 g m−3 in late summer with rare and less common species accounting for 60–80% of the total. Analysis of the size structure of the phytoplankton community combined with size fractionated primary productivity experiments revealed that one picoplankton (<2 μm) species, Chroococcus dispersus var. minor, accounted for up to half of the observed primary productivity, despite contributing 1% or less to total biomass. Our results also showed that the lake was mesotrophic during the summer of 2008 (July and September) and that trophic state has fluctuated between hyper-eutrophic and ultra-oligotrophic since monitoring began in 1970. These findings demonstrate that the Lake Ontario ecosystem is continually changing and more frequent sampling is needed. A high level of taxonomic expertise is required for even the most basic assessments of the phytoplankton community structure and improved taxonomic training and implementation of standardized techniques are necessary.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".