Landscape allometry: from tidal channel hydraulic geometry to benthic ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of hydraulic geometry and other geomorphic indices has been recommended for habitat restoration and creation of estuarine tidal channels. Although such an approach provides design guidance for tidal channel form, it does not provide guidance for the ecological consequences of channel form. This study investigates the potential linkage of the scaling of tidal channel form with ecological patterns and processes in estuarine tidal channels of the lower Chehalis River, Washington, U.S.A. Ebb tide surface velocity was related to channel size, as was exit time and export probability of tiny drogues, which mimic floating allochthonous detritus. Consequently, the amount of organic material in channel sediments scaled negatively with channel size as did the abundance of benthic surface deposit feeders. These observations suggest that the highest concentrations of fish feeding in estuarine tidal channels may be in smaller channels or in the smaller and more distal portions of large channels. Scaling of ecological patterns and processes with tidal channel size may be an example of a more general ecological scaling with landscape form, i.e., landscape allometry.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".