Colonization of formulated substrates of different composition by benthic macroinvertebrate community in an estuarine ecosystem: a case study of response of benthic invertebrates to substrate alteration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonization of formulated artificial substrate was investigated in a tropical estuarine ecosystem for six months to determine possible response of benthic macroinvertebrates to disturbance arising from substrate alteration. Five different formulated substrates which served as content for ten cages were used for this experiment. A total of 406 individuals comprising 18 macroinvertebrate species colonized the cages. In overall, cage 1 which is the control recorded the highest number of individuals and average number (8) of colonizing species at a time, while the least number (4) was observed in cage 3. Cages 2, 4, and 5 recorded average of five species each. In terms of number of individuals, cage 1 which is the control, had the highest number (153), followed by cage 2 which recorded 122 individuals. Cages 3, 4 and 5, recorded 41, 61 and 80 individuals respectively. Analysis of temporal variability in the number of species observed in the experimental cages shows that there was a progressive decrease in the number of colonizing species after the second month. Colonizing macroinvertebrate groups were not different from the known resident species in the estuarine lagoon. However, pattern of variation in the number of individuals of colonizing species were remarkably different. The assemblage recorded in this experiment was defined by the populations of two bivalve mollusc; Macoma cumana and Tellina nymphalis , two gastropod mollusc; Pachymelina aurita and Tympanotonus fuscatus and two crustacean arthropods; Clibanarius africanus and Penaeus notialis . Among the FFGs recorded, collector-filterers dominated in number of individuals and species. Nutrient concentrations of formulated substrate had strong effects on number of colonizing individuals and species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".