The effects of a warm spring on phytoplankton and zooplankton population dynamics in small eutrophic lakes in the Canadian prairies : implications of a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate projections predict warming trends for the Canadian prairies. This study investigated effects of warmer spring temperatures on phytoplankton-zooplankton populations in small eutrophic lakes. A two-year study of three eutrophic lakes with contrasting spring weather conditions, i.e., 2005 - a 'normal' spring and 2006- a warm spring (+2oC), demonstrated that warmer water temperatures were associated with increased total phytoplankton and relative cyanobacteria biomass and a shift in zooplankton dominance from daphniids to rotifers. Zooplankton hatching experiments and computer simulations tested the hypothesis that a warm spring differently affected daphniid and rotifer emergence from resting eggs. Experimental conditions mimicking an earlier spring (shorter photoperiod) resulted in fewer daphniid but not rotifer hatchlings, and computer simulations indicated that these changes in hatching success could be responsible for shifts from daphniid- to rotifer-dominated systems. Overall, a warm spring negatively affected daphniid populations, indirectly by increasing cyanobacteria prevalence and directly by decreasing hatching success.
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 | 0.000 | 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".