MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129827875 · doi:10.1139/f00-156

Aquatic macrophyte richness in Danish lakes in relation to alkalinity, transparency, and lake area

2000· article· en· W2129827875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ole Vestergaard, Kaj Sand‐Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessMacrophyteEcologyEutrophicationHabitatEnvironmental scienceAquatic plantBiodiversitySpecies diversityBiologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the relationship between environmental factors and the richness of submerged macrophytes species in 73 Danish lakes, which are mainly small, shallow, and have mesotrophic to hypertrophic conditions. We found that mean species richness per lake was only 4.5 in acid lakes of low alkalinity but 12.3 in lakes of high alkalinity due to a greater occurrence of the species-rich group of elodeids. Mean species richness per lake also increased significantly with increasing Secchi depth. No significant relationship between species richness and lake surface area was observed among the entire group of lakes or a subset of eutrophic lakes, as the growth of submerged macrophytes in large lakes may be restricted by wave action in shallow water and light restriction in deep water. In contrast, macrophyte species richness increased with lake surface area in transparent lakes, presumably due to expansion of the area colonised by submerged macrophytes. Thus, the size of the colonised area is a better predictor of species richness than lake surface area. The strong increase in species richness accompanying greater transparency can be accounted for by the combined effect of higher colonised area and higher habitat richness along gradients of deeper macrophyte growth.

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)0.001
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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations159
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207