Early and late cyanobacterial bloomers in a shallow, eutrophic lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyanobacterial blooms present challenges for water treatment, especially in regions like the Canadian prairies where poor water quality intensifies water treatment issues. Buoyant cyanobacteria that resist sedimentation present a challenge as water treatment operators attempt to balance pre-treatment and toxic disinfection by-products. Here, we used microscopy to identify and describe the evolution of cyanobacterial species in Buffalo Pound Lake, a key drinking water supply. We used indicator species analysis to identify temporal grouping structures throughout two sampling seasons from May to October 2018 and 2019. Our findings highlight two key cyanobacterial bloom phases – a mid-summer diazotrophic bloom of Dolichospermum spp. and an autumn Planktothrix agardhii bloom. Dolichospermum crassa and Woronchinia compacta served as indicators of the mid-summer and autumn bloom phases, respectively. Different cyanobacterial metabolites were associated with the distinct bloom phases in both years: toxic microcystins were associated with the mid-summer Dolichospermum bloom and some newly monitored cyanopeptides (anabaenopeptin A and B) with the autumn Planktothrix bloom. Despite forming a significant proportion of the autumn phytoplankton biomass (greater than 60%), the Planktothrix bloom had previously not been detected by sensor or laboratory-derived chlorophyll-a. Our results demonstrate the power of targeted taxonomic identification of key species as a tool for managers of bloom-prone systems. Moreover, we describe an autumn Planktothrix agardhii bloom that has the potential to disrupt water treatment due to its evasion of detection. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying this autumn bloom given the expectation that warmer temperatures and a longer ice-free season will become the norm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".