MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801575020 · doi:10.1002/hyp.13133

Isotopic evidence of subtle nutrient enrichment in mangrove habitats of <scp>Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica</scp>

2018· article· en· W2801575020 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jimena Samper‐Villarreal, Jorge Cortés, Nicholas Polunin

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de Costa RicaNational Research Council CanadaNewcastle University
KeywordsMangroveNutrientEnvironmental scienceSewageHabitatEcologyWater columnHydrology (agriculture)BiologyGeologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mangroves are of great ecological and socio‐economic importance, yet they are under threat from urban development on the southern Pacific coast of Costa Rica. To test for possible nutrient‐related impacts, we compared water‐column nutrient concentrations, C and N stable isotope values and other environmental variables between mangroves with known sewage loading (three “nutrient loaded” locations) and those without such loading (three “reference” locations). Instantaneous nutrient concentrations were low at all locations, Secchi depth was greater at reference locations, and chlorophyll concentrations were higher at nutrient loaded mangroves. Suspended matter did not vary between reference and nutrient loaded mangroves, and nor did bivalve and algal δ 13 C and δ 15 N values. Enrichment of δ 15 N and δ 13 C of red mangrove leaves at the nutrient loaded locations is attributed to pulsed inputs of materials that were not detected in the instantaneous nutrient data. We provide evidence of isotopic enrichment at nutrient loaded locations from mangrove material and recommend that adequate waste water treatment be carried out on all anthropogenic discharges into this vulnerable marine system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207