ZOOPLANKTON BIODIVERSITY AND LAKE TROPHIC STATE: EXPLANATIONS INVOKING RESOURCE ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While empirical studies linking biodiversity to local environmental gradients have emphasized the importance of lake trophic status (related to primary productivity), theoretical studies have implicated resource spatial heterogeneity and resource relative ratios as mechanisms behind these biodiversity patterns. To test the feasibility of these mechanisms in natural aquatic systems, the biodiversity of crustacean zooplankton communities along gradients of total phosphorus (TP) as well as the vertical heterogeneity and relative abundance of their phytoplankton resources were assessed in 18 lakes in Quebec, Canada. Zooplankton community richness was regressed against TP, the spatial distribution of phytoplankton spectral groups, and the relative biomass of spectral groups. Since species richness does not adequately capture ecological function and life history of different taxa, features which are important for mechanistic theories, relationships between zooplankton functional diversity (FD) and resource conditions were examined. Zooplankton species richness showed the previously established tendency to a unimodal relationship with TP, but functional diversity declined linearly over the same gradient. Changes in zooplankton functional diversity could be attributed to changes in both the spatial distribution and type of phytoplankton resource. In the studied lakes, spatial heterogeneity of phytoplankton groups declined with TP, even while biomass of all groups increased. Zooplankton functional diversity was positively related to increased heterogeneity in cyanobacteria spatial distribution. However, a smaller amount of variation in functional diversity was also positively related to the ratio of biomass in diatoms/chrysophytes to cyanobacteria. In all observed relationships, a greater variation of functional diversity than species richness measures was explained by measured factors, suggesting that functional measures of zooplankton communities will benefit ecological research attempting to identify mechanisms behind environmental gradients affecting diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".