Patterns in stream biofilm communities and organic matter processing in an agricultural stream network: A multi-scale assessment of the influence of groundwater
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Benthic stream biofilm communities support stream ecosystem structure and function by mediating nutrient and carbon cycling. Understanding how environmental factors shape biofilm communities in stream ecosystems is therefore essential. Biofilm communities have been shown to be strongly influenced by nutrient availability and temperature, factors that can be modified by groundwater input at multiple spatial scales. However, in enriched streams, groundwater input as a driver of heterogeneity in surface water environmental conditions has not been well-explored among stream reaches (kilometer scale), habitat types (meter scale), and patches (centimeter scale), nor has the seasonal consistency of these relationships been studied. To investigate the association of groundwater input to biofilm communities, I conducted three interconnected field studies in Kintore Creek, a nutrient-rich agricultural stream network in Ontario, Canada. First, I assessed if variability in groundwater input altered patterns of biofilm communities and cellulose decomposition among reaches over four temperate seasons (Chapter 2). Next, I compared habitats (i.e., riffles and runs) in reaches with high, moderate, and low groundwater inputs to determine if habitat type modified the effects of groundwater input on stream biofilm communities and cellulose decomposition by varying environmental conditions (Chapter 3). Lastly, I assessed the response of stream biofilm communities and cellulose decomposition to a gradient of groundwater upwelling at the patch scale and tested whether small scale variations in environmental conditions are associated with biofilm communities and cellulose decomposition (Chapter 4). The results of Chapter 2 showed no within season association of groundwater input to biofilm communities, with \nvii \nseasonality driving heterogeneity in biofilm communities. Findings in Chapter 3 demonstrated that habitat type modified effects of groundwater input on biofilm communities. Groundwater influence was expressed by greater primary production and decomposition in runs in reaches with groundwater input compared to runs in the reach with no groundwater input. At the patch scale (Chapter 4), groundwater upwelling did not appear to generate substantial variation in surface water conditions, and variability stream velocity was the primary driver of heterogeneity in stream biofilm communities. The findings of this this thesis are in contrast to past work that found effects of groundwater on stream biofilm communities in nutrient-poor streams. These results may be due to cumulative effects of groundwater input throughout the stream network, thereby limiting the ability to detect environmental drivers of groundwater influence at small spatial (i.e., habitat, patch) scales. Therefore, additional studies comparing catchments with differing levels of groundwater are needed to fully understand the influence of groundwater on stream biofilm communities in differing landscape contexts. A major challenge across spatial scales was the ability to represent the impact of groundwater inputs through environmental measures and biofilm communities, suggesting further investigations at the stream water – biofilm interface is required to disentangle the environmental drivers associated to heterogeneity in biofilm communities. The results of this thesis suggest that the influence of groundwater input on stream biofilm communities and processes depends on the context of stream ecosystem, therefore understanding effects of groundwater input requires future research across a diverse range of stream ecosystems.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».