MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556090153 · doi:10.1139/er-2016-0041

A critical review of the effect of water storage reservoirs on organic matter decomposition in rivers

2016· review· en· W2556090153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Gichimu Mbaka, Mercy Mwaniki

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEgerton University
KeywordsDecompositionOrganic matterEnvironmental scienceLitterChemical process of decompositionEcosystemPlant litterMacrophyteEcologyHydrology (agriculture)BiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organic matter decomposition is vital in sustaining river food webs. However, little is known about the effect of water storage reservoirs on organic matter decomposition in rivers. In this paper, we reviewed and analyzed 37 studies that investigated the effect of man-made reservoirs on organic matter decomposition in rivers. Most studies focused on decomposition of tree leaf litter (54.1%) and macrophytes litter (43.2%), while fewer studies evaluated decomposition of wood (2.7%). Based on qualitative analysis, the effect of small weirs on organic matter decomposition is local and the effect on most habitat variables is minimal. Mean effect sizes (Hedges’ g) for organic matter decomposition were −1.98 for small weirs, −1.31 for small reservoirs, and −0.66 for large reservoirs. This review demonstrates that, in general, reservoirs have a negative effect on litter decomposition. Litter decomposition, an important ecosystem process, is sensitive to impacts of reservoirs in different types of rivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFrench-language works237,207