Recovery of Crustacean Zooplankton Communities from Acidification in Killarney Park, Ontario, 1971–2000: pH 6 As a Recovery Goal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite reductions in atmospheric SO4(2-) deposition and resultant decreases in surface water acidity, widespread biological recovery from acidification has not yet been documented. Temporal trends in crustacean zooplankton species richness (number of species) and composition were examined between 1971-2000 in 46 Killarney Park lakes, Ontario, Canada, to assess the degree of biological recovery in lakes with significant water quality improvements, i.e. pH now > 6, compared to 2 other groups: i) lakes which never acidified; and ii) lakes which are still acidified (pH < 6). Time trends in species richness could not be distinguished among the 3 groups of lakes, nor did changes in species richness indicate recovery. In contrast, the zooplankton community composition of lakes in which the pH increased to above 6, as measured by a multivariate index of species abundances, changed from a "damaged" state to one typical of neutral lakes. Some recovery in composition was also documented for the acidic lakes. While still acidic, the pH levels of these lakes have risen. The extent and pace of recovery in Killarney Provincial Park bodes well for the future of other acidified regions in North America and Europe.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".