MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079181170 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.009

Use of single versus multiple biotic communities as indicators of biological integrity in northern prairie wetlands

2012· article· en· W2079181170 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Water Research InstituteAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsWetlandEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)EcosystemEcologyIndex of biological integrityHabitatPlant communityIndicator speciesBiologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As much as 70% of prairie wetlands in Canada have been lost. Although further degradation of natural wetlands is considered to be somewhat offset by wetland construction and restoration, Canada lacks bioassessment tools that can track ecosystem health in prairie wetlands. Indices of biological integrity (IBIs) use one or more biotic communities to compare the biological condition of a particular site to conditions found in least-impacted reference sites. Using the IBI approach, we evaluated the potential of 5 biotic communities to assess wetland health in northern prairie wetlands in Canada. Vegetation in the wet meadow, emergent and open-water zones as well as wetland-dependent songbirds and waterbirds were sampled at 81 semi-permanent/permanent natural and compensation wetlands spanning an environmental stress gradient. Metrics with strong linear relationships to the stress gradient (R2 > 0.2) were combined into an IBI for each biotic community and were subsequently validated at a suite of test sites. After validation, the entire data set was combined and each IBI was evaluated based on its linear relationship to environmental stress. Wet meadow zone vegetation was a strong indicator of environmental stress (R2 = 0.68, p < 0.001), as was the wetland-dependent songbird community (R2 = 0.59, p < 0.001). The emergent zone vegetation community was a relatively weak and inconsistent indicator of environmental stress, while the open-water zone vegetation and waterbird communities were poor indicators. To evaluate whether monitoring more than one biotic community provided additional information about a site's biological and environmental condition, we produced a two-taxon IBI that combined wet meadow zone vegetation and wetland-dependent songbird metrics. The two-taxon IBI had a marginally stronger linear relationship to the stress gradient (R2 = 0.72, p < 0.001) than any single biotic community alone, although we argue that this added information would not warrant the extra cost, effort, and logistical barriers of sampling both plants and birds. The wet meadow zone vegetation and wetland-dependent songbird IBIs were strong surrogates of one another (R2 = 0.57), suggesting that wet meadow zone vegetation can be used to predict the health of wetland-dependent songbirds, and visa versa. Our results suggest that habitat for healthy wet meadow zone vegetation and wetland-dependent songbird communities is being degraded as compensation sites are replacing their natural analogs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it