Interacting watershed size and landcover influences on habitat and biota of Lake Superior coastal wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal wetlands are important contributors to large-lake productivity and biodiversity and mediators of lake—watershed interactions. This study explores whether the size of the watershed in which coastal wetlands are embedded (a measure of strength of connection to the terrestrial landscape) influences their background condition and response to anthropogenic landuse. Water quality, substrate, vegetation structure, and composition of zoobenthos, turtles, crayfish, and fish were characterized in 32 Lake Superior coastal wetlands in the summers of 2000–2001, and related to watershed size categories via ANOVA and to watershed development (percent agricultural and urban landuse) via linear regression. Lake Superior coastal wetlands had relatively low levels of watershed development – apparently not enough to significantly alter fish composition. However, watershed development was associated with significant changes in substrate, turbidity, plant structure, and zoobenthos, and in most cases these effects were stronger in wetlands having big rather than small watersheds. An alternate classification contrasting exposure to versus protection from river influences was not effective at resolving responses to watershed development. Watershed size had little effect on background conditions in minimally disturbed wetlands, although turtles were more abundant in large-watershed wetlands. The role of watershed size in mediating responses to landuse merits further study, but our findings suggest that receiving inflows from bigger watersheds affects coastal wetlands primarily by amplifying transmission of disturbance rather than via direct impacts of flow.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".