Food-web responses to restoration of channel heterogeneity in boreal streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the biomass and stable-isotope composition (δ13C and δ15N) of consumers (aquatic insects and fish (Cottus gobio)) and potential food sources (detritus, biofilm, seston, algae, and mosses) in channelized and restored streams in Sweden, assessing the hypotheses that restoration enhances detritus storage and detritus-based secondary production. Restored sites stored more detritus than channelized sites, with differences (+5.4% on average) prominent in margins, i.e., the channel area within 1.4 m from the banks. The biomass of other resources was similar between restored and channelized sites. Most common aquatic insects, including several putative detritivores, showed δ13C values indicating reliance on aquatic (probably algal) carbon sources. The insectivorous fish Cottus gobio, on the contrary, appeared to be more dependent on terrestrial (detrital) carbon sources. The biomass and mean δ13C values of the consumers were similar between restored and channelized sites, suggesting that restoration did not increase net secondary production or the fraction of secondary production based on detritus. We concluded that the increase in detritus storage at restored sites was either insufficient to enhance detritus-based production or the consumers were not limited by the availability of detritus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".