Riparian forest composition affects stream litter decomposition despite similar microbial and invertebrate communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-boundary flows of energy and nutrients link biodiversity and functioning in adjacent ecosystems. The composition of forest tree species can affect the structure and functioning of stream ecosystems due to physical and chemical attributes, as well as changes in terrestrial resource subsidies. We examined how variation in riparian canopy composition (coniferous, deciduous, mixed) affects adjacent trophic levels (invertebrate and microbial consumers) and decomposition of organic matter in small, coastal rainforest streams in southwestern British Columbia. Breakdown rates of higher-quality red alder (Alnus rubra) litter were faster in streams with a greater percentage of deciduous than coniferous riparian canopy, whereas breakdown rates of lower-quality western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) litter were independent of riparian forest composition. When invertebrates were excluded using fine mesh, breakdown rates of both litter species were an order of magnitude less and were not significantly affected by riparian forest composition. Stream invertebrate and microbial communities were similar among riparian forest composition, with most variation attributed to leaf litter species. Invertebrate taxa richness and shredder biomass were higher in A. rubra litter; however, taxa evenness was greatest for T. heterophylla litter and both litter species in coniferous streams. Microbial community diversity (determined from terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms) was unaffected by riparian forest or litter species. Fungal allele richness was higher than bacterial allele richness, and microbial communities associated with lower-quality T. heterophylla litter had higher diversity (allele uniqueness and richness) than those associated with higher-quality A. rubra litter. Percent variation in breakdown rates was mostly attributed to riparian forest composition in the presence of invertebrates and microbes; however, stream consumer biodiversity at adjacent trophic levels did not explain these patterns. Riparian and stream ecosystems and their biotic communities are linked through exchange and decomposition of detrital resources, and we provide evidence that riparian forest composition affects stream ecosystem catabolism despite similarities in microbial and invertebrate communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".