MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135782887 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-58-8-1603

Primary determinants of macrophyte community structure in 62 marshes across the Great Lakes basin: latitude, land use, and water quality effects

2001· article· en· W2135782887 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Vanessa L. Lougheed, Barb Crosbie, Patricia Chow‐Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrophyteWetlandTyphaMarshEnvironmental scienceWater qualityEcologySpecies richnessNutrientAquatic plantPlant communityGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We collected water quality, land use, and aquatic macrophyte information from 62 coastal and inland wetlands in the Great Lakes basin and found that species richness and community structure of macrophytes were a function of geographic location and water quality. For inland wetlands, the primary source of water quality degradation was inputs of nutrients and sediment associated with altered land use, whereas for coastal wetlands, water quality was also influenced by exposure and mixing with the respective Great Lakes. Wetlands within the subbasins of the less de- veloped, more exposed upper Great Lakes had unique physical and ecological characteristics compared with the more developed, less sheltered wetlands of the lower Great Lakes and those located inland. Turbid, nutrient-rich wetlands were characterized by a fringe of emergent vegetation, with a few sparsely distributed submergent plant species. High- quality wetlands had clearer water and lower nutrient levels and contained a mix of emergent and floating-leaf taxa with a diverse and dense submergent plant community. Certain macrophyte taxa were identified as intolerant of turbid, nutrient-rich conditions (e.g., Pontederia cordata, Najas flaxilis), while others were tolerant of a wide range of condi- tions (e.g., Typha spp., Potamogeton pectinatus) occurring in both degraded and pristine wetlands. Resume : Des donnees recueillies sur la qualite de l'eau, l'utilisation des terres et les macrophytes aquatiques dans 62 terres humides des regions cotieres et interieures du bassin des Grands Lacs indiquent que la richesse specifique et la structure des communautes de macrophytes dependent de la situation geographique et de la qualite de l'eau. Dans les terres humides interieures, la source principale de degradation de la qualite de l'eau est l'apport de nutriments et de sediments cause par les changements dans l'utilisation des terres, alors que, dans les terres humides cotieres, la qualite de l'eau est aussi influencee par le contact avec le Grand Lac adjacent et les melanges d'eau qui s'y produisent. Les terres humides des sous-bassins des Grands Lacs d'amont, qui ont subi moins de developpement et qui sont plus expo- ses, possedent des caracteristiques physiques et ecologiques tout a fait particulieres, par comparaison avec les terres humides des Grands Lacs d'aval qui sont plus developpes et moins proteges, et les terres humides interieures. Les terres humides turbides et riches en nutriments sont caracterisees par le developpement d'une ceinture de vegetation emergente et la presence sporadique de quelques plantes submergees. Les terres humides de grande qualite possedent une eau plus claire, des concentrations plus faibles de nutriments et une combinaison de taxons de plantes emergentes et de plantes a feuilles flottantes, d'une part, et d'une communaute diversifiee et dense de plantes submergees, d'autre part. Certains taxons de macrophytes se sont reveles intolerants aux conditions de turbidite et de richesse en elements nutritifs elevees (e.g., Pontederia cordata, Najas flexilis), alors que d'autres tolerent une gamme etendue de conditions (e.g., Typha spp., Potamogeton pectinatus) et se retrouvent dans les terres humides tant degradees qu'intactes.

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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations145
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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