A Comparison of Mercury Biomagnification through Lacustrine Food Webs Supporting Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Other Salmonid Fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methylmercury (MeHg) bioaccumulation in lower-trophic-level organisms and its subsequent biomagnification through food webs differs in magnitude among lakes and results in intraspecific variability of MeHg in top predator fishes. Understanding these differences is critical given the reproductive and neurotoxic effects of MeHg on fishes and their predators, including humans. In this study we characterized the food webs of five lakes in New Brunswick, Canada, supporting Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) using measures of relative trophic position (δ15N) and carbon sources (δ13C), determined the concentrations of MeHg in invertebrates and total Hg (THg) in fishes, and quantified MeHg biomagnification from primary to tertiary consumers. Methyl Hg and THg concentrations were highest in biota from lakes with lower pH. The trophic magnification slopes (TMS; log Hg vs. δ15N) varied significantly among lakes (0.13–0.20; ANCOVA, p = 0.031). When combined with data from other salmonid lakes in temperate and Arctic Canada (n = 36), among-system variability in TMS was best, but weakly, positively predicted by aqueous total phosphorous (p = 0.028, R2adj= 0.109). These results suggest that lake productivity directly or indirectly influences the biomagnification of MeHg through diverse food webs supporting salmonids.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".