Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33424102›Full record

ArticleJournal of Great Lakes research2020

A lake-wide approach for large lake zooplankton monitoring: Results from the 2006-2016 Lake Superior Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative surveys.

Matthew B Pawlowski, Michael E Sierszen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Great Lakes research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. InvasiveFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
    Article
  3. Status of the amphipodJournal of Great Lakes research · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Matthew B PawlowskiOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN.
Michael E SierszenUSEPA Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, MN.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole-lake surveys of Lake Superior were completed during late summer in 2006, 2011, and 2016 to assess lower food web conditions under the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI). These surveys used a spatially stratified probability approach based on depth to assess food web conditions within different depth zones. We evaluated differences in crustacean zooplankton biomass, rotifer density, and the community structure of both groups in nearshore (<30 m), midshore (30-100 m), and offshore (>100 m) depth zones and investigated changes in these parameters within zones over time. Although nearshore crustacean biomasses and rotifer densities were highly variable, the depth zones differed from each other based on these parameters and should be considered separately. Crustacean biomass, community structure, and vertical position were consistent over time across depth zones. The differences that did occur were within the range of known annual variability. Total rotifer densities were lower in 2016 than in 2006 in all depth zones but the genera that contributed to the lower values were not the same across zones. Further studies are needed to know whether these differences reflect annual variability or long-term trends. Finally, we show how the depth zones used in this study can facilitate comparisons between monitoring programs. This is important because most zooplankton studies are limited to certain depth zones and changes in zooplankton parameters may not occur uniformly across zones. The high variability in nearshore zooplankton parameters suggests that additional research may be needed to effectively track changes there.

Indexed as

Cooperative Science and Monitoring InitiativeGreat LakesLake SuperiorProbability surveyszooplankton

Identifiers

PMID33424102
PMCPMC7787984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.