Comparing diatom species, genera and size in biomonitoring: a case study from streams in the Laurentians (Québec, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. We studied the distribution of epilithic diatoms in streams subjected to different degrees of human impact in order to evaluate their potential as bioindicators for environmental changes such as nutrient enrichment and acidification. 2. Three descriptors of the diatom assemblages were tested with respect to their potential to predict environmental changes: species composition, genus composition and size distribution. 3. Water colour and pH explained the largest amount of variation in diatom assemblages. According to ordination analyses, water colour explained variations in size distribution (42%) better than those in generic (25%) or species composition (8%). On the other hand, pH was not correlated with size distribution while a significant fraction of variation was explained by species (11%) and especially generic (18%) composition. Only species composition responded to changes in phosphorus and grazer biomass, however. 4. Size distribution and coarse (genus level) taxonomic analyses sometimes outperformed fine taxonomy in describing the response of diatom assemblages to colour and acidity. In view of the simplicity of these alternative descriptions of diatom assemblages, their potential for routine stream monitoring should be further explored.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".