Whole‐lake experiments reveal the fate of terrestrial particulate organic carbon in benthic food webs of shallow lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lake ecosystems are strongly linked to their terrestrial surroundings by material and energy fluxes across ecosystem boundaries. However, the contribution of terrestrial particulate organic carbon (tPOC) from annual leaf fall to lake food webs has not yet been adequately traced and quantified. In this study, we conducted whole-lake experiments to trace artificially added tPOC through the food webs of two shallow lakes of similar eutrophic status, but featuring alternative stable regimes (macrophyte rich vs. phytoplankton dominated). Lakes were divided with a curtain, and maize (Zea mays) leaves were added, as an isotopically distinct tPOC source, into one half of each lake. To estimate the balance between autochthonous carbon fixation and allochthonous carbon input, primary production and tPOC and tDOC (terrestrial dissolved organic carbon) influx were calculated for the treatment sides. We measured the stable isotope ratios of carbon (delta13C) of about 800 samples from all trophic consumer levels and compared them between lake sides, lakes, and three seasons. Leaf litter bag experiments showed that added maize leaves were processed at rates similar to those observed for leaves from shoreline plants, supporting the suitability of maize leaves as a tracer. The lake-wide carbon influx estimates confirmed that autochthonous carbon fixation by primary production was the dominant carbon source for consumers in the lakes. Nevertheless, carbon isotope values of benthic macroinvertebrates were significantly higher with maize additions compared to the reference side of each lake. Carbon isotope values of omnivorous and piscivorous fish were significantly affected by maize additions only in the macrophyte-dominated lake and delta13C of zooplankton and planktivorous fish remained unaffected in both lakes. In summary, our results experimentally demonstrate that tPOC in form of autumnal litterfall is rapidly processed during the subsequent months in the food web of shallow lakes and is channeled to secondary and tertiary consumers predominantly via the benthic pathways. A more intense processing of tPOC seems to be connected to a higher structural complexity in littoral zones, and hence may differ between shallow lakes of alternative stable states.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".