Physiological response of 10 phytoplankton species exposed to macondo oil and the dispersant, Corexit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture experiments were conducted on ten phytoplankton species to examine their biological and physiological responses during exposure to oil and a combination of oil and dispersant. The species tested included a range of taxa typically found in the Gulf of Mexico such as cyanobacteria, chlorophytes, and diatoms. Cultures were exposed to Macondo surrogate oil using the water accommodated fraction ( WAF ), and dispersed oil using a chemically enhanced WAF ( CEWAF ) and diluted CEWAF , to replicate conditions following the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A range of responses were observed, that could broadly class the algae as either “robust” or “sensitive” to oil and/or dispersant exposure. Robust algae were identified as Synechococcus elongatus , Dunaliella tertiolecta , two pennate diatoms Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Navicula sp., and Skeletonema grethae CCMP 775, and were largely unaffected by any of the treatments (no changes to growth rate or time spent in lag phase relative to controls). The rest of the phytoplankton, all centric diatoms, exhibited at least some combination of reduced growth rates or increased lag time in response to oil and/or dispersant exposure. Photophysiology did not have a strong treatment effect, with significant inhibition of photosynthetic efficiency (F v /F m ) only observed in the CEWAF , if at all. We found that the effects of oil and dispersants on phytoplankton physiology were species‐dependent, and not always detrimental. This has significant implications on how oil spills might impact phytoplankton community structure and bloom dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico, which in turn impacts higher trophic levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".