Effect of the Level of Irradiance on Growth and Content of Photosynthetic Pigments of Canadian Elodea (Elodea canadensis) in Model System “Water-Bottom Sediments”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioassays based on aquatic plants are a convenient tool for studying the quality of bottom sediments. One of the stages in the development of a bioassay is the selection of optimal growth conditions for indicator plants in a model test system. Response of indicator physiological endpoints of Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis) to light flux density was investigated to determine optimal irradiance level in a “water – sediment” model system, proposed previously for contact bioassay of natural bulk bottom sediments. Based on the response of shoot and root growth (length and weight), and concentration and ratio of photosynthetic pigments (chl. a, chl. b, and carotenoids) of Elodea to the change of light flux density, no limitation or inhibition of growth and photosynthesis of Elodea was revealed at light flux density from 56 to 143 μmol quanta ∙ m-2 ∙ s-1. Hence, the level of irradiance within this range can be recommended for use in the experimental system proposed for bioassay of bulk bottom sediments using E. canadensis as an indicator
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".