Abundance, community composition, and site structure of lotic assemblages in Gatineau Park streams and streams in the Ottawa-Gatineau Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty-seven sample sites in 45 streams across the National Capital Region and Gatineau Park were sampled between the summers of 2001 and 2008 in order to describe communities within the Park and assess differences in stream fish and invertebrate assemblages along a gradient of urbanization. Additionally the relationships between nutrient concentration and biomass of algae, invertebrates, and fish were quantified, and changes in the size distribution of benthic invertebrates and fish along a gradient of nutrient and anthropogenic impacts were described. Principal Component Analyses indicated that urban and agricultural sites were easily distinguished from forested sites using water quality parameters. Invertebrate and fish assemblages did not differ as clearly among site categories. There were increased nutrient levels in agricultural and urbanized watersheds, however the biomass of primary producers did not proportionally track the increase in nutrients. Slopes of the relationships between biomass and nutrient concentration declined with increasing trophic level, indicating a reduction of the efficiency of energy transfer in more eutrophic systems. Size spectra from nitrogen enriched streams had elevated intercepts and increased residual variance was noted in perturbed watersheds. The current study has provided baseline data for stream communities within and outside of Gatineau Park and in doing so it is clear that Gatineau Park streams are in good, but variable health. In order to monitor change, protect diversity within the Park, and mitigate further stress to these streams, it may be useful to use aspects of the size spectra such as normalized density and the residual variance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".