Review of and Recommendations for Monitoring Contaminants and their Effects in the San Francisco Bay−Delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legacy and current-use contaminants enter into and accumulate throughout the San Francisco Bay−Delta (Bay−Delta), and are present at concentrations with known effects on species important to this diverse watershed. There remains major uncertainty and a lack of focused research able to address and provide understanding of effects across multiple biological scales, despite previous and ongoing emphasis on the need for it. These needs are challenging specifically because of the established regulatory programs that often monitor on a chemical-by-chemical basis, or in which decisions are grounded in lethality-based endpoints. To best address issues of contaminants in the Bay−Delta, monitoring efforts should consider effects of environmentally relevant mixtures and sub-lethal impacts that can affect ecosystem health. These efforts need to consider the complex environment in the Bay−Delta including variable abiotic (e.g., temperature, salinity) and biotic (e.g., pathogens) factors. This calls for controlled and focused research, and the development of a multi-disciplinary contaminant monitoring and assessment program that provides information across biological scales. Information gained in this manner will contribute toward evaluating parameters that could alleviate ecologically detrimental outcomes. This review is a result of a Special Symposium convened at the University of California−Davis (UCD) on January 31, 2017 to address critical information needed on how contaminants affect the Bay−Delta. The UCD Symposium focused on new tools and approaches for assessing multiple stressor effects to freshwater and estuarine systems. Our approach is similar to the recently proposed framework laid out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that uses weight of evidence to scale toxicological responses to chemical contaminants in a laboratory, and to guide the conservation of priority species and habitats. As such, we also aimed to recommend multiple endpoints that could be used to promote a multi-disciplinary understanding of contaminant risks in Bay−Delta while supporting management needs.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".