MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of native riparian tree species in decomposition of invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) leaf litter in an urban stream

2008· article· en· W2139174685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher M. Swan, Benjamin Healey, David C. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgência Regional para o Desenvolvimento da Investigação, Tecnologia e Inovação
KeywordsAilanthus altissimaRiparian zoneHeavenLitterPlant litterInvasive speciesBotanyTree (set theory)Riparian forestBiologyEcologyGeographyForestryEcosystemMathematicsHabitatArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasingly, interactions between human and natural systems centre on the multi-scale restoration of ecosystems. Humans rely on ecosystem services provided by streams, yet human activities degrade water quality worldwide. Replanting streamside vegetation is a common restoration practice, since trees reduce runoff and stabilize banks. But does riparian tree biodiversity matter? Detrital inputs from riparian vegetation impact in-stream processes, e.g., leaf decomposition. Since the increasing distribution of invasive plant species alters the structure of streamside forest communities, input of invasive litter to streams could alter such processes. We followed decomposition rates of the invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima, TOH) and 6 native leaf species in an urban stream and complemented this effort with laboratory feeding experiments employing the same treatments and 2 common aquatic detritivores. TOH breakdown was rapid, exceeding native leaf decay. Mixing TOH with native species reduce...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFrench-language works237,207