River Connectivity Affects Submerged and Floating Aquatic Vegetation in Floodplain Wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The submerged and floating plant communities in floodplain wetlands of the Upper Columbia River have never been described. To explore mechanisms behind the influence of the annual flood pulse on vegetation, we investigated how species group into flood response guilds whose distributions vary along a connectivity gradient between 44 floodplain wetlands and the river, how connectivity influences water and sediment, and to what degree the effect of connectivity on vegetation is mediated by its effects on these environmental variables. We characterised assemblages with cluster and indicator species analysis, as well as non-metric scaling ordination and tested a structural equation model, which defined the relationship between assemblage composition, sediment and water quality, and connectivity to the river. We found four assemblages, each associated with different water and sediment conditions, and positioned at differing degrees of connectivity. The model provided a good fit to the data. We conclude that in highly connected floodplain wetlands the direct effect of flooding supersedes the influence of water and sediment quality in structuring vegetation assemblages. Yet where flooding is less intense, these environmental variables resume their structuring role.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".