Considering river structure and stability in the light of evolution: feedbacks between riparian vegetation and hydrogeomorphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract River ecological functioning can be conceptualized according to a four‐dimensional framework, based on the responses of aquatic and riparian communities to hydrogeomorphic constraints along the longitudinal, transverse, vertical and temporal dimensions of rivers. Contemporary riparian vegetation responds to river dynamics at ecological timescales, but riparian vegetation, in one form or another, has existed on Earth since at least the Middle Ordovician (c. 450 Ma) and has been a significant controlling factor on river geomorphology since the Late Silurian (c. 420 Ma). On such evolutionary timescales, plant adaptations to the fluvial environment and the subsequent effects of these adaptations on fluvial sediment and landform dynamics resulted in the emergence, from the Silurian to the Carboniferous, of a variety of contrasted fluvial biogeomorphic types where water flow, morphodynamics and vegetation interacted to different degrees. Here we identify several of these types and describe the consequences for biogeomorphic structure and stability (i.e. resistance and resilience), along the four river dimensions, of feedbacks between riparian plants and hydrogeomorphic processes on contrasting ecological and evolutionary timescales. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".