Phytoplankton and zooplankton development in a lowland,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The longitudinal and seasonal patterns of plankton development were examined over 2 years in a lowland, temperate river: the Rideau River (Ontario, Canada). Following an initial decrease in phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass as water flowed from the headwaters into the Rideau River proper, there was an increase in chlorophyll a (chl a) and zooplankton biomass with downstream travel. At approximately river km 60, both phytoplankton and zooplankton reached their maximum biomass of 27 p.g H (chl a) and 470 (ig H (dry mass), respectively. Downstream of river km 60, the biomass of both planktonic communities declined significantly despite increasing nutrient concentra-tions and favorable light conditions. These downstream declines may be due to the feeding activity of the exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) which was at high density in downstream reaches (>1000 individuals m~2). There was no evidence for longitudinal phasing of phytoplankton and zoo-plankton, as increases and decreases in chl a and zooplankton biomass appeared to coincide. Overall, chl a was best predicted by total phosphorus (R2 = 0.43), whereas zooplankton biomass was best pre-dicted by chl a (R2 = 0.20). There was no evidence for significant grazing effects of zooplankton on phytoplankton biomass.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".