MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

RESPONSE OF ZOOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES TO LIQUID CREOSOTE IN FRESHWATER MICROCOSMS

2001· article· en· W4248510168 on OpenAlexaff
Paul K. Sibley, Megan L. Harris, Ketut T. Bestari, Tracey A. Steele, Richard D. Robinson, Robert W. Gensemer, Kristen E. Day, Keith R. Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrocosmZooplanktonCladoceraCreosoteEcologyBiologyBranchiopodaPopulationAquatic ecosystemEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the response of zooplankton communities to single applications of liquid creosote in model aquatic ecosystems (microcosms) was evaluated. Liquid creosote was applied to 14 microcosms at concentrations ranging from 0.06 to 109 mg/L. Two microcosms served as controls. Zooplankton samples were collected from each microcosm on days 7 and 1 before treatment and on days 2, 5, 7, 14, 21, 28, 43, 55, and 83 following treatment. Temporal changes (response-recovery) in composition of the zooplankton community were assessed using principal response curves (PRC). Creosote induced a rapid, concentration-dependent reduction in zooplankton abundance and number of taxa, with maximum response (50-100% reduction in population densities) occurring between 5 and 7 d after treatment. Taxa that dominated at the time of treatment experienced the greatest impact, as indicated by large, positive species weight values (> 1) from the PRC analysis. Many of these taxa recovered to pretreatment or control levels during the posttreatment period, with the degree and duration of recovery being strongly dependent on concentration. Creosote had little effect on species composition at less than 1.1 mg/L, because changes in the types and relative proportion of species contributed from Cladocera, Rotifera, and Copepoda were comparable to those observed in control microcosms. However, a significant shift in species composition was observed at concentrations greater than 1.1 mg/L; these microcosms were generally dominated by low numbers of rotifers, some of which had not been collected before treatment. Community-level effect concentrations (EC50s) were 44.6 and 46.6 micrograms/L at 5 and 7 d, respectively, based on nominal creosote. Corresponding no-effect concentrations were 13.9 and 5.6 micrograms/L. The results of this field study indicate that creosote may pose a significant risk to zooplankton communities at environmental concentrations potentially encountered during spills and/or leaching events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry→Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics→French-language works237,207→