Abiotic and biotic processes in lakes recovering from acidification: the relative roles of metal toxicity and fish predation as barriers to zooplankton re‐establishment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Recovery of acidified aquatic systems may be affected by both abiotic and biotic processes. However, the relative roles of these factors in regulating recovery may be difficult to determine. Lakes around the smelting complexes near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, formerly affected by acidification and metal exploration, provide an excellent opportunity to examine the factors regulating the recovery of aquatic communities. 2. Substantial recovery of zooplankton communities has occurred in these lakes following declines in acidity and metal concentrations, although toxicity by residual metals still appears to limit survival for many species. Metal bioavailability, not simply total metal concentrations, was very important in determining effects on zooplankton and was associated with a decrease in the relative abundance of cyclopoids and Daphnia spp., resulting in communities dominated by Holopedium gibberum. 3. As chemical habitat quality has improved and fish, initially yellow perch and later piscivores (e.g. smallmouth bass, walleye), have invaded, biotic effects on the zooplankton are also becoming apparent. Simple fish assemblages dominated by perch appear to limit the survival of some zooplankton species, particularly Daphnia mendotae. 4. Both abiotic (residual metal contamination) and biotic (predation from planktivorous fish) processes have very important effects on zooplankton recovery. The re‐establishment of the zooplankton in lakes recovering from stress will require both improvements in habitat quality and the restoration of aquatic food webs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".