Human shoreline development and the nutrient stoichiometry of aquatic plant communities in Canadian Shield lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human activities associated with residential development potentially alter ecological processes in lake littoral zones. We determined how the nutrient stoichiometry of aquatic plant communities relates to residential density around lakes of south-central Ontario. We calculated the elemental composition of entire plant communities from multiple sites in 12 lakes using measurements of individual plant C:N:P ratios and their areal biomass. We found considerable variability in the C:N:P ratios of whole aquatic plant communities among sites and lakes, which was not accounted for by intraspecific variability in the elemental composition of aquatic plants. Instead, differences in community-level C:N:P ratios primarily resulted from high interspecific variability in the elemental composition among dominant plant taxa and variable taxonomic composition of sampled plant communities. Plant community composition differed among lakes with and without shoreline residences, and we found lower C:N and C:P ratios in communities from littoral zones in human-developed lakes. Our results thus demonstrate a link between the elemental and taxonomic composition of aquatic plant communities, which may mediate biogeochemical responses of littoral zones to development of lake shorelines.
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 | 0.000 | 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".