Persistence and recolonisation determine success of bog restoration for aquatic invertebrates: a comment on Mazerolle <i>et al</i>. (2006)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Mazerolle et al. (2006) concluded that some aquatic invertebrate species, including bog‐associated species, readily colonise man‐made bog pools. In contrast, in Dutch bog remnants Van Duinen et al. (2003) found that a considerable number of bog‐associated species do not colonise newly created bog pools. 2. The conclusion of Mazerolle et al. (2006) is based on vagile aquatic invertebrates. Here, we question whether their conclusion can be extended to more sedentary species, which were not captured in the Canadian study, but made up an important part of the invertebrate assemblage in the Dutch study. This discrepancy could be caused by sampling artefacts, low colonisation rates of these species or an incomplete restoration of site conditions. 3. In Canada, chances of recolonisation may be higher than in the Netherlands, as natural and near‐natural bogs are more extensive. In the Netherlands, with low chances of recolonisation, persistence of species may be more important. To disentangle the relative importance of persistence and recolonisation, evaluations of the success of restoration projects need to cover the entire invertebrate assemblage, including both vagile and more sedentary 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 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".