Environment trumps predation and spatial factors in structuring cladoceran communities from Boreal Shield lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding local and regional controls on communities is a major theme in ecology. Are communities mainly determined by local environmental gradients, local biotic interactions, and (or) dispersal processes? To address this, subfossil Cladocera were enumerated from the surface sediments of 50 remote Boreal Shield lakes in northwestern Ontario, Canada, to examine three ecologically relevant explanatory categories. Variation partitioning analyses were used to test and quantify the unique and shared effects of local abiotic measures, local predation factors, and spatial variables as predictors of community composition. Thirty-nine taxa were identified and communities were typically composed of pelagic taxa, such as Bosmina , daphniids, and Holopedium gibberum . Environmental variables (i.e., pH, lake surface area, specific conductivity, and lake water total aluminum concentration) explained uniquely 8.8% of the variation, which was 2.5 times greater than the unique contributions of predation or dispersal-related spatial variables. Predation and dispersal processes assumed lesser roles in structuring communities. Considering the extensive geographic scale of this study, our paleolimnological approach indicates that broad-scale dispersal limitation of cladocerans seems negligible for the many taxa examined here. Our findings further support the utility of cladocerans as key biological indicators to track environmental changes within Boreal Shield 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".