Resource dynamics and detritivore production in an acid stream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Life history patterns and production of eight shredder‐detritivore species were studied in relation to the detritus dynamics of a small acidic stream in England. Mean annual detritus inputs (direct and lateral sources combined) were approximately 400 g m−2 year−1 and showed significant seasonal and annual variation. 2. Detritus standing stock did not increase significantly during times of high input, reflecting low retention efficiency. However, the mean detritus standing stock was relatively large (108 g m−2) reflecting a slow decomposition rate typical of acid streams. 3. Four species were univoltine with highly synchronous patterns of emergence and recruitment (Leuctra inermis, Leuctra hippopus, Capnia vidua and Amphinemura sulcicollis). Two species were univoltine with extended patterns of emergence and recruitment (Nemoura cinerea, Potamophylax cingulatus). Leuctra nigra was apparently semivoltine, while Protonemura meyeri showed two successive cohorts in the second year of the study, suggesting either bivoltinism or cohort splitting. 3. Secondary production of the dominant shredders was 1.67 g m−2 year−1 in 1997 and 1.99 g m−2 year−1 in 1998, which is low compared with other small European streams. This was probably because of an impoverished invertebrate community and poor food quality associated with acid conditions. Food availability probably did not account for the low production as the detritus standing stock far exceeded the estimated shredder ingestion of 42–50 g m−2 year−1. 4. Despite low overall shredder production, species‐specific production was high, possibly because of competitive release in this species‐poor acid stream. Periods of high production and growth showed no relationship with detritus availability but were closely related to life history.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".