Responses of obligate versus facultative riparian shrubs following river damming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Riparian or streamside woodlands include obligate riparian trees and shrubs (obligates) that are restricted to streamside zones, and facultative riparian species that are abundant in, but not restricted to the riparian areas. Due to their distinctive life history requirements, it may be predicted that the ecological specialist obligates would be more vulnerable than the facultative generalists to impacts from river damming and flow regulation. We tested this along the Snake River through Hells Canyon, USA, where two native riparian shrubs dominate: the obligate sandbar willow (Salix exigua), and the facultative, netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata). We assessed riparian conditions over the past century by comparing ground‐level and aerial photographs taken after 1907 and in the 1950s in advance of three dams, versus recent conditions. These comparisons revealed three changes downstream from the dams: (1) the depletion of surface sands and sandbars and (2) reductions in sandbar willow versus (3) the proliferation of hackberry in dense bands above the typical high‐water line. The willow decline probably resulted from the depletion of sand following sediment trapping by the reservoirs, combined with changes in the seasonal water flow pattern. The increase in hackberry may have resulted from a beneficial ‘irrigation effect’ of daily water releases for power generation during the summer. The opposing responses reflect the plants' differing life histories and may partially resolve impacts of river regulation on alluvial sediments versus the instream flow pattern. We consider other riparian studies that suggest that obligates such as cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia, P. deltoides and P. fremontii) are highly vulnerable to river regulation, while facultative trees and shrubs such as trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), wolf‐willow (Elaeagnus commutata) and velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina) are more resilient. These results suggest that conservation of riparian woodlands should emphasize the ecological specialist obligates, while facultative species may be less vulnerable to river regulation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".