Influence of organic matter on invertebrate colonization of sand substrata in a northern Michigan stream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sand is a common substratum in many streams, especially in lacustrine geologies, but has been less studied as a habitat for invertebrates than other substrata such as gravel and cobble. We hypothesized that benthic organic matter (BOM) content would influence the abundance and community structure of macroinvertebrates in sand habitats. Levels of coarse BOM (no = 0, low = 1%, high = 5% organic matter, as dry mass) were manipulated in 45 colonization chambers (volume = 539 cm3) implanted in a sand-dominated reach of Shane Creek in the Ottawa National Forest, Michigan. Chironomidae, Tipulidae, and Trichoptera were common colonizers of chambers. At the end of the 32-d experiment, invertebrate abundance (F2,12 = 7.5, p = 0.015) and biomass (F2,12 = 8.7, p = 0.010) were significantly higher in chambers with low BOM than with no BOM, but the high-BOM treatment did not differ from the no-BOM treatment. Throughout the experiment, functional feeding groups (FFG) were dominated numerically by gathering collectors in all treatments, but predators increased over time in the no-BOM and high-BOM treatments. At the beginning of the experiment, FFG biomass was dominated by shredders, and predator biomass increased in the no-BOM and high-BOM treatments over time. In general, taxon richness was higher in the low-BOM treatment than in the high-BOM treatment (F2,108 = 4.1, p = 0.025). Overall, the low-BOM treatment supported more invertebrates than the no-BOM and high-BOM treatments, perhaps because of fewer predators. Results suggest that local patterns of BOM accumulation may affect macroinvertebrate abundance and distribution in sand habitats in a nonlinear manner.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".