Zooplankton community response to experimental acidification in boreal shield lakes with different ecological histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community responses to acidification and recovery of boreal lakes are poorly understood, particularly after several years of recovered lake-water pH (pH ≥ 6.0). We tested if zooplankton communities in two circumneutral lakes with different acidification histories were adapted to historical lake-water pH with a reciprocal transplant field enclosure experiment. A second objective was to assess the influence of local environments on zooplankton survival and abundance. Differences in acid tolerance could be detected in some zooplankton among the two lakes with different acidification histories — zooplankton from acid-recovering Carlyle Lake, recovered to pH ≥ 6.0 for 6 years were more speciose and maintained higher total abundance at pH 4.8 than the community from a buffered lake. The zooplankton community in this historically acidified lake was comprised of two dominant species with acid-adaptable tolerances, Holopedium gibberum and Leptodiaptomus minutus. High establishment of transplanted zooplankton in our experiment has important implications for the recovery of zooplankton communities because it suggests that local conditions are suitable for most species in acid-recovering lakes with pH ≥ 6.0 and that other factors such as dispersal limitation and biotic interactions may be impeding recovery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".