Ciliate ecology in the eutrophic Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario: Community structure and feeding characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ciliate community of the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario was assessed over a six year period from 2003 – 2008. One eutrophic site in the upper bay (Belleville) and one more oligotrophic site in the lower bay (Conway), were included in the survey. Both sites contained a mixture of Haptoria, Strobilidium, Halteria, Strombidium, and Vorticella, although the relative proportions varied among sites resulting in different community structures. Ciliate biomass was found to be significantly higher at Belleville (mean: 100.2 ± 14.1 mg m−3) compared to Conway (mean: 37.1 ± 3.5 mg m−3), but could be explained by sudden pulses of Haptoria, primarily species of Mesodinium, which peaked as high as 678.1 mg m−3. Canonical Correspondence Analysis showed a clustering of Halteria, Strobilidium, Tintinnina, Urotricha and Vorticella with surface temperature along with autotrophic picoplankton as a potential prey item. The results suggest that autotrophic picoplankton may be an important food resource for the ciliate community and that there is a strong seasonal gradient to community structure. Future research should be directed at understanding how ciliates influence the transfer of both primary and secondary production to 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".