Periphyton Response to Additions of Glucose and Hydrogen Peroxide as Control Measures of Harmful Algal Blooms
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
A mesocosm-based study was conducted to assess the effect of glucose and hydrogen peroxide on periphyton communities. These chemicals have been found to be effective at controlling cyanobacteria blooms in the water column but their impact on attached communities is unknown. The experimental design included a total of 4 treatments: control (no chemicals; 3 replicates); hydrogen peroxide (3 replicates); glucose alone (3 different concentrations [no replicates]); and additive glucose (3 replicates). After 34 days, mean values of chlorophyll a were lower in all experimental treatments compared to the control; mean AFDM values were lower in all treatments except the unreplicated high glucose alone treatment. In contrast, mean autotrophic index values (AFDM/chlorophyll a) were greater in all treatments compared to the control, indicating heterotrophs were more resistant to the chemical treatments than autotrophs. Periphyton community biodiversity was much lower in the additive glucose and moderate glucose alone treatments than the hydrogen peroxide and control treatments. The relative abundance of the bacteria Asticcacaulis and Sphingorhabdus responded positively to the glucose treatments, whereas relative abundance of Nevskia and Caenimonas declined in both the hydrogen peroxide and glucose treatments. In terms of relative abundance, no cyanobacteria taxa were detected among the top 20 taxa. We conclude that the autotrophic component of periphyton communities is especially vulnerable to hydrogen peroxide and glucose treatments, and that any management strategy employing these chemicals should be aware of this potential impact.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it