The abundance, biomass and composition of pelagic ciliates in East African lakes of different salinity and trophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planktonic ciliates were studied in 17 tropical East African lakes of different salinity and trophic status. Oligotrichs (e.g., Strombidium, Strobilidium and Halteria) and scuticociliates (e.g., Cyclidium, Pleuronema, Cristigera), dominated the ciliate communities. Conductivity and trophic status were the most important environmental variables influencing the distribution of ciliate species in East African lakes. Herbivorous oligotrichs were important in oligotrophic and mesotrophic lakes, as they are in temperate and subtropical lakes, but their importance decreased with increasing chlorophyll a concentration and conductivity. On the other hand, the importance of scuticociliates (primarily bacterivores) increased with increasing chlorophyll a and conductivity. Mean ciliate abundance ranged from 2 to 1,220 ciliates.mL-1 while the biomass range was from 1.9 to 1, 900 ~kg C.L-1 respectively from oligotrophic to eutrophic lakes. Abundance and biomass had positive relationships with phytoplankton biomass. The ciliate abundance and biomass were higher than those reported in temperate (Quebec) and subtropical (Florida) lakes of similar trophic status. However, regression models predicting abundance and biomass of ciliates from chlorophyll suggest that temperate (Quebec), subtropical (Florida) and tropical (East Africa) lakes have similar ciliate abundance and biomass per unit chlorophyll except some saline tropical lakes which have very high abundance and biomass of ciliates relative to chlorophyll.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".