Acidity versus habitat structure as regulators of littoral microcrustacean assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Emergence traps were set overnight on the sediment surface to sample the littoral microcrustaceans of 22 Canadian Shield lakes that ranged in pH from 4.56 to 6.92. Traps were randomly allocated in quintuplicate in both wave‐washed sandy habitats where pipewort (Eriocaulon septangulare) was the dominant macrophyte (termed pipewort habitats), and more protected habitats dominated by floating‐leaved macrophytes (termed floating‐leaved habitats). 2. In total, 50 cladoceran and 22 copepod species were found, with 16–45 species in each lake. Lakes that had never acidified exhibited a more diverse fauna than lakes that had acidified. 3. There were only minor differences between the numbers of species found in floating‐leaved versus pipewort habitats except for one lake. Non‐chydorid cladoceran, chydorids and copepods constituted 45%, 26% and 29% of the total number of individuals, respectively. 4. Based on presence/absence, dominance scores and frequency of occurrences of species, the microcrustacean faunal composition was similar in the two habitats. A detrended correspondence analysis confirmed that there was no separation between the two main types of habitat, and that pH was the parameter most strongly correlated with the dominant microcrustacean compositional gradient among lakes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".