Ecology of leaf pack macroinvertebrate communities in streams of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary 1. To characterise geographic and small scale variation in the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in stream leaf packs, we collected one to three natural leaf pack communities from 119 reference streams in the Fraser River Basin and quantified their variability and correlation with aspects of the stream environment at several scales. We also sampled leaf packs in 19 test streams in the same geographic area exposed to stressors (nine logged, seven farmed, three mined catchments) to evaluate the leaf pack community as a tool for bioassessment. 2. There was substantial variation in the composition of invertebrate communities in leaf packs among reference streams of the Fraser River Basin. Capnia and Zapada (stoneflies), Baetis and Ephemerella (mayflies) and Tvetnia (midge) were the most common taxa found in the leaf packs. There were three types of assemblages identified by non‐metric multidimensional scaling; Capnia , Baetis and Ephemerella communities. 3. Leaf pack communities from the 19 test streams were plotted on a non‐metric multidimensional scaling ordination of the reference communities, and 14 of 19 sites fell outside the 80% confidence ellipse of the reference sites, including eight of nine logged, four of seven farmed and one of three mined catchments. Most of these streams plotted on the ordination near the Ephemerella reference communities. Reference stream communities had a similar number of genera per leaf pack (12.0) and genera per site (18.7) as the test streams (12.6 genera per leaf pack and 18.7 genera per site). Among the test sites, the farmed catchments had higher genera per leaf pack (17.8) and genera per site (21.9) than either the logged (11.5 genera per leaf pack; 19.9 genera per site) or mined (3.4 genera per leaf pack; 7.7 genera per site) catchments. 4. Heterogeneity of leaf pack communities within a site decreased as the number of genera found at the site increased. This was determined by allometric regression of the number of genera found at a site on the maximum number of genera possible, given the average number found per leaf pack. 5. There was a significant relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and stream geography (latitude, longitude, altitude, stream order). Canonical correspondence analysis showed differences among ‘big river’, ‘mountain stream’ and ‘southern’ communities. 6. There was no relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and stream channel and flow characteristics (bank dimensions, flow, slope). There was a significant relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and water quality of the stream (oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, conductivity, pH, temperature). ‘Cold, oxygen rich water’ communities were distinguishable from communities in streams with warmer, lower oxygen concentration. ‘High nutrient water’ communities were also distinct from communities in low nutrient streams. There was no relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and the nature of the leaf pack itself (i.e. morphology, decomposition, coniferous needle content). 7. Invertebrate communities in leaf packs show substantial, interpretable variation among reference streams. They are sensitive to human stressors at a landscape scale such as forestry and agriculture. Their diversity and composition varies at different spatial scales in a way that is at least partially explained by the environment of the stream and its catchment area.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».