Impacts of land use on the structure of river macroinvertebrate communities across Tasmania, Australia: spatial scales and thresholds
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formulation of scientifically justified guidelines for management of anthropogenic impacts on river health requires better understanding of the quantitative linkages among river-system parameters. The present study examines relationships between land use and biological metrics of river health in Tasmania, in the context of a variety of environmental drivers. An extensive dataset (103 sites) of macroinvertebrate assemblages was collected between 1999 and 2006. We hypothesised that grazing by domestic livestock would have the greatest impact on community structure of the land-use types investigated because grazing is a dominant land-use type in Tasmania (and can cover a large proportion of catchment area), because land clearance for grazing is rarely followed by regeneration and because historically riparian vegetation has not been protected. Multivariate and correlation analysis showed that community structure responded strongly to land use and confirmed that the strongest relationships were observed for grazing land use and environmental variables associated with grazing, such as e.g. water abstraction and/or regulation and riparian vegetation. Analyses accounting for hydrological region and location confirmed the generality of this relationship. We conclude that catchment-wide management actions would be required to mitigate these impacts of grazing because land use and riparian vegetation condition were generally stronger determinants of community structure at catchment rather than local scales.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it