An Evaluation of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Stream Benthic Invertebrates in Southern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we sampled stream benthos using rapid bioassessment methods (i.e., D-nets, coarse taxonomy) from sites in and around Toronto, Ontario that represented a range of stream characteristics (e.g., drainage areas). The protocols were developed by or adapted from: (1) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, (2) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, (3) Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network/Ministry of the Environment, and (4) Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network/Environment Canada. Summary indices (Hilsenhoff's modified Biotic Index [HBI]; percent of fauna as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera [% EPT]; number of taxa [S]; and Shannon's Diversity Index [H']) calculated from the resulting data were used to evaluate differences between protocols in a series of analyses including analysis of variance and variance components analysis. The study found that sampling method was an unimportant source of variation in summary index values relative to other factors such as the stream or year sampled. The largest percent variance amongst stream or year factors (main and interactions) was at least three times greater than the corresponding method related percent variances. The results of this study suggest that these four bioassessment methods are interchangeable within the context of large geographic scales or for the detection of major impacts. In cases where impacts to the benthic community are subtle, protocols should include one or more of discrete habitat sampling, replication, and lower taxonomic resolution. The data and findings here may help agencies integrate different sampling protocols into their biomonitoring and assessment programs.
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 | 0.025 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".