BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE RESPONSE TO HABITAT RESTORATION IN A CONSTRUCTED ARCTIC STREAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We examined the ability of engineered rock structures to enhance the productive capacity of benthic macroinvertebrates 2 years after their installation in a constructed stream in the Northwest Territories, Canada. We used a control‐impact design to compare biological attributes of the structures to those of riffles in natural reference streams and among individual structures. The biomass of epilithon and coarse particulate organic matter, cover by bryophytes and macrophytes and volume of woody debris, however, were similar at structures and unenhanced control sites in the constructed stream and lower than at riffles in reference streams. Total macroinvertebrate density and densities of Chironomidae, Nematoda and Oligochaeta did not differ among engineered structures, unenhanced sites and reference riffles. In contrast, reference streams supported higher densities of Simuliidae and Ephemeroptera compared with engineered structures and unenhanced sites within the channel. Total biomass, biomass of Chironomidae, non‐chironomid Diptera and combined biomasses of (i) Nematoda, Oligochaeta and Turbellaria and (ii) Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Hemiptera from reference riffles exceeded those at engineered structures. Density and biomass of macroinvertebrates varied within and among structure types and were highest at one of two ramps, one of two vanes and at the single groin compared with other structures. In the majority of cases, density and biomass of macroinvertebrates from individual structures were less than those at reference streams. These results suggest that engineered structures had variable effects on the productive capacity of benthic macroinvertebrates of the constructed streams and may be related to the extent that structures provided habitat conditions characteristic of reference riffles. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2011. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Natural Resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".