Spatial responses of hyporheic invertebrates to seasonal changes in environmental parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Spatial relationships between hyporheic invertebrates and subsurface water flow patterns, sediment characteristics, water physicochemical parameters and several possible food sources were compared over three seasons at one site beneath a riffle. Measures of food sources included particulate organic matter (POM), bacterial activity (aerobic respiration, nitrate respiration and mineralisation of organic nitrogen) and microbial abundance. 2. Patterns of water flow changed significantly over the 9‐month study period, from predominantly upwelling beneath the entire riffle in spring, to distinct differentiation between downwelling and upwelling zones in summer and autumn. Water physicochemical parameters changed accordingly, showing gradually weaker correlations with depth and stronger correlations with zone between spring and autumn. 3. Despite these changes, depth remained the strongest predictor of invertebrate richness, density and taxon composition throughout the study period. However, invertebrate distributions were secondarily correlated with water physicochemical parameters, and a minor gradient in invertebrate distributions between downwelling and upwelling zones became stronger from spring to summer. 4. The correlations between invertebrates and physicochemical parameters changed in both magnitude and direction with season. In spring, invertebrates showed a negative correlation with surface water infiltration, whereas in summer and autumn, the correlation was positive. Correlations were strongest in summer, when interstitial dissolved oxygen concentrations were lowest. 5. No relationships were found between hyporheic invertebrates and POM, microbial abundance or activity. This suggests that at this site, proximity to the streambed surface and physicochemical variables are more important than the abundance of food in controlling invertebrate distributions.
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".