MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098819672 · doi:10.1899/06-101.1

Land use controls nutrient excretion by stream invertebrates along a gradient of agriculture

2007· article· en· W2098819672 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leah A. H. James, Marguerite A. Xenopoulos, Henry F. Wilson, Paul C. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the North American Benthological Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsMayflyPeriphytonNutrientSTREAMSExcretionWatershedInvertebrateEcologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryAnimal scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the relationship between land use in the watershed and nutrient release by mayflies in streams in southcentral Ontario (Canada). Mayfly excretion rates and molar ratios of dissolved organic C (DOC), NH4+, and soluble reactive P (SRP) were measured in 6 streams flowing through watersheds with contrasting agricultural land use. Mass-specific release rates of NH4+ and SRP by mayflies and % agricultural land use (% agriculture) in the watershed were strongly positively related (r2 = 0.48, p < 0.01 and r2 = 0.58, p < 0.05, respectively). Changes in excretion rates and ratios probably were caused by lower periphyton C:N and C:P ratios associated with elevated total dissolved N and total P concentrations (r2= 0.30, p < 0.05 and r2= 0.38, p < 0.001, respectively) in streams in watersheds with high % agriculture. Mayfly mass-specific excretion rates and periphyton elemental composition were related to % agriculture, but the relatively constant body C, N, and P content in mayflies across all streams suggests strong homeostasis in these consumers. Watershed land use alters nutrient loading, which influences periphyton elemental composition and, ultimately, stoichiometry of nutrient fluxes through invertebrate consumers.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the North American Benthological SocietySame topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFrench-language works237,207