Littoral microcrustacea in Lake 302S in the Experimental Lakes Area of Canada: acidification and recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The littoral microcrustacean community (Cladocera and Copepoda) was examined from 1989 to 1991 in a lake experimentally acidified to pH 4.5, and from 1992 to 1997 during the early stages of pH recovery. Cladoceran abundance declined significantly from 1989 to 1991 (pH 4.5), but species richness did not change. Acantholeberis curvirostris, Simocephalus serrulatus, Latona spp. (Latona setifera, L. parviremis) , and all species of chydorid Cladocera declined markedly in abundance while at pH 4.5. The abundance of cyclopoid copepods was low and Ceriodaphnia and calanoid copepods were absent. Recovery of the community was subsequently monitored as pH was incrementally changed to a target pH 5.1 in 1992 and 1993, and to 5.8 in 1994–97. Species richness remained unchanged. Chydorid cladocerans remained at low abundance in 1992, and only Chydorus cf. brevilabris increased substantially from 1993 to 1996. Non‐chydorid Cladocera increased in abundance in 1992, declined again in 1993, then gradually increased (mainly due to Ophryoxus gracilis ) in 1994–96. All species declined in 1997 as minnows recolonized the lake. The calanoid copepod Leptodiaptomus minutus was present in low numbers in 1997. The microcrustacean community in the littoral zone of Lake 302S has not yet shown consistent signs of recovery from acidification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".