Ecology of leaf pack macroinvertebrate communities in streams of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. To characterise geographic and small scale variation in the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in stream leaf packs, we collected one to three natural leaf pack communities from 119 reference streams in the Fraser River Basin and quantified their variability and correlation with aspects of the stream environment at several scales. We also sampled leaf packs in 19 test streams in the same geographic area exposed to stressors (nine logged, seven farmed, three mined catchments) to evaluate the leaf pack community as a tool for bioassessment. 2. There was substantial variation in the composition of invertebrate communities in leaf packs among reference streams of the Fraser River Basin. Capnia and Zapada (stoneflies), Baetis and Ephemerella (mayflies) and Tvetnia (midge) were the most common taxa found in the leaf packs. There were three types of assemblages identified by non‐metric multidimensional scaling; Capnia, Baetis and Ephemerella communities. 3. Leaf pack communities from the 19 test streams were plotted on a non‐metric multidimensional scaling ordination of the reference communities, and 14 of 19 sites fell outside the 80% confidence ellipse of the reference sites, including eight of nine logged, four of seven farmed and one of three mined catchments. Most of these streams plotted on the ordination near the Ephemerella reference communities. Reference stream communities had a similar number of genera per leaf pack (12.0) and genera per site (18.7) as the test streams (12.6 genera per leaf pack and 18.7 genera per site). Among the test sites, the farmed catchments had higher genera per leaf pack (17.8) and genera per site (21.9) than either the logged (11.5 genera per leaf pack; 19.9 genera per site) or mined (3.4 genera per leaf pack; 7.7 genera per site) catchments. 4. Heterogeneity of leaf pack communities within a site decreased as the number of genera found at the site increased. This was determined by allometric regression of the number of genera found at a site on the maximum number of genera possible, given the average number found per leaf pack. 5. There was a significant relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and stream geography (latitude, longitude, altitude, stream order). Canonical correspondence analysis showed differences among ‘big river’, ‘mountain stream’ and ‘southern’ communities. 6. There was no relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and stream channel and flow characteristics (bank dimensions, flow, slope). There was a significant relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and water quality of the stream (oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, conductivity, pH, temperature). ‘Cold, oxygen rich water’ communities were distinguishable from communities in streams with warmer, lower oxygen concentration. ‘High nutrient water’ communities were also distinct from communities in low nutrient streams. There was no relationship between the composition of the leaf pack invertebrate community and the nature of the leaf pack itself (i.e. morphology, decomposition, coniferous needle content). 7. Invertebrate communities in leaf packs show substantial, interpretable variation among reference streams. They are sensitive to human stressors at a landscape scale such as forestry and agriculture. Their diversity and composition varies at different spatial scales in a way that is at least partially explained by the environment of the stream and its catchment area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".