Zooplankton allochthony is spatially heterogeneous in a boreal lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The proportion of consumer biomass from terrestrial origin (i.e. allochthony) has been shown to vary greatly among lakes and also seasonally, but has been assumed to be spatially homogeneous within a lake. Given that the distribution of different organic carbon (C) sources tends to be spatially patchy in most lakes, this assumption may not be warranted. We tested this hypothesis using a spatially intensive sampling designed to capture the in‐lake heterogeneity in terrestrial inputs, phytoplankton, benthic algae and a dominant aquatic macrophyte ( Brasenia schreberi : Cabombaceae) in a medium‐sized boreal lake, and used a dual‐isotope Bayesian mixing approach (δ 13 C, δ 2 H) to establish the degree of allochthony of the dominant copepod Leptodiaptomus minutus (Diaptomididae) across these sites. Samples were collected in spring when tributaries had high flow rates and aquatic primary producers (phytoplankton, macrophytes) had rapid growth rates, and in mid‐summer when tributary flows were at the lowest. There was substantial spatial variability in the stable‐isotope composition of the copepod and consequently in its levels of allochthony in both seasons. Allochthony in L. minutus varied from 34 to 50% in spring and from 45 to 65% in summer, and this range was linked to the spatial variability in the main sources of organic C (terrestrial inputs via tributaries, B. schreberi and phytoplankton). Allochthony in L. minutus was lowest in areas dominated by macrophytes, and further influenced by the distribution of tributary‐derived terrestrial C across the lake. Macrophyte and phytoplankton carbon contributed, respectively, up to 28 and 38% during growing season (spring) to the diet of the L. minutus , while benthic algae contribution was negligible. Our results clearly show that the reliance of zooplankton on terrestrial C may be spatially heterogeneous even in a relatively small lake and, in particular, that macrophytes, whose distribution is typically patchier than that of phytoplankton, may play a major role in shaping the spatial patterns of zooplankton allochthony in lakes.
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) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".