Influence of the vertical structure of macrophyte stands on epiphyte community metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physical structure of submerged aquatic plant communities differentially influences the availability of light and substratum in the water column and, thus, the functional role of epiphytes growing on macrophytes. We examined the depth distribution of photosynthesis and respiration of epiphyte communities within macrophyte stands of contrasting growth forms over a 2-year period in Lake Saint-Pierre (St. Lawrence River). To do so, we used a modelling approach, combining laboratory measurements of photosynthesis and respiration with field data of macrophyte and epiphyte biomass and vertical light attenuation. In stands dominated by canopy-forming macrophytes, shading resulted in strong vertical gradients in epiphyte metabolism, with a positive net oxygen balance in the canopy and a negative net oxygen balance in the bottom portion of the stand. In low-growing macrophyte stands, the net oxygen balance of epiphytes was either positive or negative, depending on water transparency and depth. Epiphyte communities had a daily negative net oxygen balance under light conditions below ~10% of surface light intensity. Areal production simulations demonstrated that neglecting variations in the vertical distribution of epiphytes, macrophytes, and light within macrophyte stands can result in errors in areal production estimates of >100%.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".