How sensitive are invertebrates to riparian-zone replanting in stream ecosystems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clearing native vegetation has pervasive effects on stream and river ecosystems worldwide. The stated aims of replanting riparian vegetation often are to restore water quality and to re-establish biotic assemblages. However reach-scale restoration may do little to combat catchment-scale degradation, potentially inhibiting restoration success. Whether reinstating biodiversity is a realistic goal or appropriate indicator of restoration success over intermediate timeframes (<30 years) is currently unclear. We measured the response of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages to riparian replanting in a chronosequence of replanted reaches on agricultural streams in south-eastern Australia. Sites had been replanted with native vegetation 8–22 years before the study. Indices of macroinvertebrate sensitivity did not respond to replanting over the time gradient, probably because replanting had little benefit for local water quality or in-stream habitat. The invertebrate assemblages were influenced mainly by catchment-scale effects and geomorphological characteristics, but were closer to reference condition at sites with lower total catchment agricultural land cover. Reach-scale replanting in heavily modified landscapes may not effectively return biodiversity to pre-clearance condition over decadal time-scales. Restoration goals, and the spatial and temporal scale of processes required to meet them, should be carefully considered, and monitoring methods explicitly matched to desired outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".