Species‐specific patterns of litter processing by terrestrial isopods (Isopoda: Oniscidea) in high intertidal salt marshes and coastal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The species‐specificity of litter processing by three species of isopods at the interface between salt marsh and coastal forest habitats in the south‐eastern United States was examined. To quantify isopod performance, measurements were taken of feeding, digestion and growth of isopods fed on three litter types (Juncus roemerianus, Quercus virginiana and Pinus palustris) and on artificial diets containing one of three classes of model phenolic compounds (simple phenolics and hydrolysable and condensed tannins). To quantify the ecosystem impact of isopods, promotion of microbial respiration, changes in detritus chemistry, and the quantity of litter processed by isopod populations were measured. The results support three hypotheses concerning isopod–litter interactions. (i) Isopod performance on different litter types can be predicted based on chemical litter traits, e.g. phenolic concentrations and C : N ratios. (ii) Fully terrestrial isopods are better adapted to the range of phenolics found in angiosperm litter than are semiterrestrial species inhabiting the supralittoral. (iii) Isopod species differ with respect to their impact on decomposition processes due to species‐specific digestive capabilities, different effects on microbial decomposition and different rates of net litter processing. Because isopods are transitional between semiterrestrial and terrestrial habitats, unlike most other salt marsh detritivores, they are likely to play a unique role in decomposition processes and in the flux of materials between salt marsh and terrestrial habitats.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".