What makes a cyanobacterial bloom disappear? A review of the abiotic and biotic cyanobacterial bloom loss factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyanobacterial blooms present substantial challenges to managers and threaten ecological and public health. Although the majority of cyanobacterial bloom research and management focuses on factors that control bloom initiation, duration, toxicity, and geographical extent, relatively little research focuses on the role of loss processes in blooms and how these processes are regulated. Here, we define a loss process in terms of population dynamics as any process that removes cells from a population, thereby decelerating or reducing the development and extent of blooms. We review abiotic (e.g., hydraulic flushing and oxidative stress/UV light) and biotic factors (e.g., allelopathic compounds, infections, grazing, and resting cells/programmed cell death) known to govern bloom loss. We found that the dominant loss processes depend on several system specific factors including cyanobacterial genera-specific traits, in situ physicochemical conditions, and the microbial, phytoplankton, and consumer community composition. We also address loss processes in the context of bloom management and discuss perspectives and challenges in predicting how a changing climate may directly and indirectly affect loss processes on blooms. A deeper understanding of bloom loss processes and their underlying mechanisms may help to mitigate the negative consequences of cyanobacterial blooms and improve current management strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it