Landscape variables influencing nutrients and phytoplankton communities in Boreal Plain lakes of northern Alberta: a comparison of wetland- and upland-dominated catchments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of headwater lakes in undisturbed watersheds on the Boreal Plain, with indirect gradient analyses of chemical data, indicated a clear separation between those in wetland-dominated watersheds (57100% wetland with variable proportions of bog, fen, swamp, and marsh cover) and those in upland-dominated watersheds (044% wetland cover). In the former, percentage wetland cover in the watershed was positively correlated with total phosphorus (TP, r 2 = 0.78, primarily bog), total nitrogen (TN, r 2 = 0.50), and dissolved organic carbon (DOC, r 2 = 0.74) concentrations. Rich fens appeared to sequester both TP and TN. In upland-dominated lakes, the ratio of catchment area to lake volume (CA/LV) was the strongest watershed correlate of TP concentration (r 2 = 0.56), whereas most limnetic nitrogen and DOC were generated in situ. Colour concentration, being highest in wetland lakes, was correlated with the ratio of isotopically defined effective drainage basin area to lake volume (eDBA/LV, r 2 = 0.63). Drainage basin slope was only weakly associated with water quality, likely because of low topographic relief ([Formula: see text]11%). Higher Chlorophyta and Peridineae biomasses in wetland-dominated systems than in upland-dominated ones may coincide with greater NH 4 + availability.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".