Ecohydrology and stewardship of Alberta springs ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied the role of ecological and anthropogenic impact gradients on ecosystem structure and composition of 56 freshwater springs among mountain, foothills, and prairie ecoregions in southern Alberta, Canada. A random stratified site selection from 2008 to 2012 was based on representation of characteristic springs types across elevation, ecoregions, and land use histories. Springs emergence varied over geomorphic contexts and was dominated by hillslope (28), helocrene (marsh, 13), and rheocrene (stream channel, seven) types, with fewer limnocrene (pool, four), cave (two), gushet (one), and hanging garden (one) springs. Among these springs, specific conductance of non‐geothermal springs water was negatively related to elevation and groundwater temperature (R2 = 0.343 and 0.336 respectively). Plant species richness was positively related to habitat area (R2 = 0.328) and weakly to geomorphic diversity (R2 = 0.135) and total alkalinity and specific conductance (R2 < 0.181). We detected at least 444 higher native plant taxa on only 3.82 ha of springs habitat, equalling 25% of Alberta's flora on <0.001% of the provincial land area. Non‐native plant species density was positively related to that of native plants (R2 = 0.36). Human impacts on springs included livestock production and domestic water supplies, while beaver and other wildlife commonly influenced ecosystem function on protected lands. We conclude that the springs of Alberta are ecologically important but are understudied and inadequately protected, especially with increasing demand for groundwater as a result of extensive allocation and use of surface water in southern Alberta. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.002 | 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".