MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Land use and the ecology of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of high‐altitude rainforest streams in Uganda

2008· article· en· W2093494860 on OpenAlexafffund
Aventino Kasangaki, Lauren J. Chapman, J.S. Balirwa

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill UniversityWildlife Conservation Society
KeywordsRainforestDeforestation (computer science)Buffer zoneEcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceWater qualityThreatened speciesBiodiversityAgricultural landNational parkLand useAgroforestryHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. In sub‐Saharan Africa, tropical forests are increasingly threatened by accelerating rates of forest conversion and degradation. In East Africa, the larger tracts of intact rainforest lie largely in protected areas surrounded by converted landscape. Thus, there is critical need to understand the functional links between large‐scale land use and changes in river conditions, and the implications of park boundaries on catchment integrity. 2. The objective of this study was to use the mosaic of heavily converted land and pristine forest created by the protection of the high‐altitude rainforest in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda to explore effects of deforestation on aquatic systems and the value of forest in buffering effects of adjacent land conversion. A set of 16 sites was selected over four drainages to include four categories of deforestation: agricultural land, deforested upstream (of the park boundary), forest edge (park boundary) and forest. We predicted that forest buffer (downstream or on the edge) would moderate effects of deforestation. To address this prediction, we quantified relationships between disturbance level and both physicochemical characters and traits of the macroinvertebrate assemblages during six sampling periods (February 2003 and June 2004). 3. Results of both principal components analysis and cluster analyses indicated differences in limnological variables among deforestation categories. PC1 described a gradient from deforested sites with poor water quality to pristine forested sites with relatively good water quality. Agricultural sites and deforested upstream sites generally had the highest turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and conductivity values and low transparency values. Forest sites and boundary site groups generally exhibited low turbidity, TDS, and conductivity values and high water transparency values. Sites also clustered according to deforestation categories; forest and forested edge sites formed a cluster independent of both agricultural land and deforested‐upstream. 4. Water transparency, water temperature, and pH were the most important factors predicting benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. Sensitive invertebrate families of Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Odonata dominated forested sites with high water transparency, low water temperature, and low pH while the tolerant families of Ephemeroptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, and Coleoptera were abundant in agriculturally impacted sites with low water transparency, high water temperature, and high pH. 5. This study provides support for the importance of riparian buffers in moderating effects of deforestation. Forest and forested edge sites were more similar in both limnological and macroinvertebrate assemblage structure than sites within or downstream from agricultural lands. If the protected area cannot encompass the catchment, the use of rivers as park boundaries may help to maintain the biological integrity of the rivers by buffering one side of the watercourse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations256
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFrench-language works237,207