Spatiotemporal Variation in Biotic and Abiotic Features of Eight Intertidal Mudflats in the Upper Bay of Fundy, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined biotic and abiotic variables on the expansive intertidal mudflats of the upper Bay of Fundy, Canada, at 8 geographically separate sites over 2 years (2009–2011). Invertebrate density, surface density of primary producers (mainly diatoms, measured as chlorophyll-a concentration), shorebird- and fish-foraging activity, and sediment properties varied considerably through time and space. Dissimilarity in the invertebrate community between consecutive sampling rounds was lower during peaks in density and richness (June–August) than during periods of low density and richness (December–March). All but one site located within Chignecto Bay (one arm of the upper Bay of Fundy) had similar invertebrate communities; sites within the Minas Basin (the other arm of the upper Bay) had more distinct communities compared to Chignecto Bay mudflats. The amphipod Corophium volutator, Copepoda, Ostracoda, and the polychaetes Phyllodocidae and Spionidae were usually main contributors to observed community differences over space and time. Although our sites are all silt-dominated mudflats, mean particle size, sediment penetrability, and depth to the apparent redox discontinuity potential (aRDP, a measure of sediment-oxygen content) were usually main contributors to site differences in sediment conditions. However, when we pooled samples over sites and sampling rounds, percent water content and percent organic-matter content accounted for the majority of the variation in sediment properties, likely reflecting within-site patchiness. Such quantification of spatiotemporal patterns in biotic and abiotic variables is an essential first step in the development of predictive models or the design of manipulative experiments to investigate ecological relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".