The Ecological Impacts and Effectiveness of Control Methods for the Invasive Macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum in Eastern Ontario Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, the impacts a year after the treatments of both burlap benthic barriers and mechanical cutting of M. spicatum on physical, chemical, and biological components of eastern Ontario lakes were investigated.One lake was selected for studying the burlap barrier treatment, and three lakes were selected across a nutrient gradient for the mechanical harvesting treatment to observe links between total phosphorus concentrations and macrophyte-zooplankton dynamics.The impacts of the treatments on this invasive species were minimal, but there was a clear shift in zooplankton assemblage to more open-water types following the benthic barrier application.Results from both treatments displayed minimal impacts to localized abiotic factors and zooplankton assemblages.While the change in zooplankton community structure at Malcolm Lake did appear to be partially driven by the burlap barrier treatment, zooplankton communities within both types of treatments were instead mainly driven by their surrounding environmental variables and seasonal variance.after control 2019-10-03 16.90 79.20 228.10 8.45 0.42 0.01 41.64 after impact 2019-10-03 16.70 82.40 226.20 8.35 0.44 0.01 40.86 after impact 2019-10-03 16.70 84.70 226.10 8.43 0.40 0.01 55.09 after impact 2019-10-03 16.70 86.70 226.70 8.45 0.39 0.01 33.27 after control 2020-09-15 18.50 100.30232.10 8.66 0.43 0.01 20.60 after control 2020-09-15 18.50 95.50 232.308.69 0.41 0.01 25.05 after control 2020-09-15 18.20 95.40 230.60 8.72 0.50 0.01 30.85 after impact 2020-09-15 18.40 84.50 232.90 8.53 0.45 0.02 69.15 after impact 2020-09-15 18.30 86.70 232.60 8.57 0.45 0.01 65.40 after impact 2020-09-15 18.30 94.50 229.60 8.64 0.43 0.01 50.45 after control 2020-10-05 16.40 94.00 223.80 8.51 0.39 0.01 32.15 after control 2020-10-05 16.40 92.10 223.80 8.55 0.39 0.01 39.85 after control 2020-10-05 16.40 88.80 224.50 8.58 0.41 0.01 37.85 after impact 2020-10-05 16.30 95.10 222.90 8.53 0.44 0.01 54.60 after impact 2020-10-05 16.30 93.10 223.10 8.67 0.44 0.01 84.90 after impact 2020-10-05 16.20 92.30 222.20 8.68 0.42 0.01 77.95
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".