Responses of intermittent pond ciliate populations and communities to in situ bottom-up and top-down manipulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pond physicochemical characteristics and bottom-up effects were more important than top-down effects in governing ciliate community structure in 2 adjacent intermittent ponds in Southern Ontario, Canada. The ciliates showed a bimodal seasonal pattern with abundances peaking early and late in the hydroperiods, and the communities showed a strong seasonal succession of speciesonly 15% of the 162 ciliate species were present throughout the hydroperiods. Less than half of the species occurred in both ponds. Adding riparian leaf litter to large pond enclosures affected several physicochemical variables, increased bacterial abundance, and promoted the appearance of particular species -many of which are known to be associated with nutrient-or organic matter-enriched conditions. This treatment resulted in higher ciliate abundance (mainly small-sized bacterivores) and lower ciliate diversity in mid-hydroperiod in one of the ponds. The removal of plant litter generally produced effects in the physicochemical variables that were opposite to those seen in the leaf litter addition, and resulted in a 15% decrease in the proportion of ciliate bacterivores in one pond. The effects of top-down manipulations (i.e. prevention of aerial colonization of insects) were minor. Many treatment effects were season-, and pond-specific. The measured environmental variables (including pond and treatments) explained half of the variation in ciliate abundance, one-third of the species diversity, and one-fifth of the species composition. Pond characteristics and the leaf litter additions were the most important factors for determining ciliate abundance (together with chlorophyll a), diversity (together with dissolved oxygen), and community composition (together with season).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".