Comparisons of the Colonisation by Invertebrates of Three Species of Wood, Alder Leaves, and Plastic “Leaves” in a Temperate Stream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Small woody debris in streams is abundant, and may be a food source or may provide a substrate on which other food sources such as biofilm may develop, both of which may be significant to invertebrates in times of food scarcity. We examined patterns of invertebrate colonisation of small woody debris (veneers of red alder, Douglas‐fir, and western red cedar), red alder leaves, and plastic (as an inert substrate to mimic leaves). Invertebrate colonisation was high on alder leaves, but low on wood substrates and plastic, controlling for the available surface area. Detritivorous invertebrates had significantly higher colonisation rates of alder leaves versus the other four substrates, whereas predators and collectors did not (consistent with their use of these as substrates and not food). All wood decreased in mass by <15% and leaves by ∼50% over the 75 days of the experiment. For all taxa tested, there was no significant difference in their colonisation of the wood veneers versus the plastic sheets. These results suggest that wood was not directly used by these invertebrates as a food source, or that there could be similar biofilm development on the surfaces of these substrates. (© 2008 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".