Methodological review and meta‐analysis of dilution assays for estimates of virus‐ and grazer‐mediated phytoplankton mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This manuscript reviews methodological differences among modified dilution assay studies used to partition phytoplankton mortality into virus‐ and grazer‐mediated fractions, and discusses their implications. A meta‐analysis is also described, based on virus‐ and grazer‐mediated mortality and instantaneous growth rates extracted from these studies. As the α value used to assess the significance of these rates was not consistent across studies, metadata was re‐analyzed (i.e., rates were re‐calculated) using three levels of significance: α = 0.05, α = 0.1, and α ‐not‐considered. The average virus‐mediated mortality rate observed for each re‐analysis was 0.04 d −1 , 0.10 d −1 , and 0.08 d −1 , respectively. Further, 80%, 74%, and 56% of virus‐mediated mortality rates were between −0.1 d −1 and 0.1 d −1 . Power analysis was used to demonstrate that typical modified dilution assays lack the sensitivity to consistently detect small virus‐mediated mortality rates, and shows how dilution scheme modifications can affect power. Rates of virus‐mediated mortality were also discriminated based on salinity, depth, use of nutrient amendments, and choice of technique for estimating apparent growth rates. For all three re‐analyses, a significant positive correlation was observed between virus‐mediated mortality (d −1 ) and instantaneous growth rate (d −1 ) (Pearson r = 0.72, 0.74, 0.32, all p values < 0.01), suggesting that virally mediated mortality is intimately linked to host growth. This manuscript highlights the need for greater standardization in the analysis and presentation of information when using the modified dilution approach for estimating phytoplankton mortality, and provides recommendations for the application of future assays.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.125 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".