MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601411530 · doi:10.1111/fwb.12909

How important are terrestrial organic carbon inputs for secondary production in freshwater ecosystems?

2017· article· en· W2601411530 on OpenAlex
Michael T. Brett, Stuart E. Bunn, Sudeep Chandra, Aaron W. E. Galloway, Fen Guo, Martin J. Kainz, Paula Kankaala, Danny C. P. Lau, Timothy P. Moulton, Mary E. Power, Joseph B. Rasmussen, Sami J. Taipale, James H. Thorp, John D. Wehr

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrophic levelPrimary producersEnvironmental scienceAquatic ecosystemDissolved organic carbonEcosystemEcologyOrganic matterNutrientBenthic zoneFood webZooplanktonFreshwater ecosystemBiomass (ecology)Primary productionAlgaeTerrestrial ecosystemInvertebratePlant litterBiologyPhytoplankton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many freshwater systems receive substantial inputs of terrestrial organic matter. Terrestrially derived dissolved organic carbon (t‐DOC) inputs can modify light availability, the spatial distribution of primary production, heat, and oxygen in aquatic systems, as well as inorganic nutrient bioavailability. It is also well‐established that some terrestrial inputs (such as invertebrates and fruits) provide high‐quality food resources for consumers in some systems. In small to moderate‐sized streams, leaf litter inputs average approximately three times greater than the autochthonous production. Conversely, in oligo/mesotrophic lakes algal production is typically five times greater than the available flux of allochthonous basal resources. Terrestrial particulate organic carbon (t‐POC) inputs to lakes and rivers are comprised of 80%–90% biochemically recalcitrant lignocellulose, which is highly resistant to enzymatic breakdown by animal consumers. Further, t‐POC and heterotrophic bacteria lack essential biochemical compounds that are critical for rapid growth and reproduction in aquatic invertebrates and fishes. Several studies have directly shown that these resources have very low food quality for herbivorous zooplankton and benthic invertebrates. Much of the nitrogen assimilated by stream consumers is probably of algal origin, even in systems where there appears to be a significant terrestrial carbon contribution. Amino acid stable isotope analyses for large river food webs indicate that most upper trophic level essential amino acids are derived from algae. Similarly, profiles of essential fatty acids in consumers show a strong dependence on the algal food resources. Primary production to respiration ratios are not a meaningful index to assess consumer allochthony because respiration represents an oxidised carbon flux that cannot be utilised by animal consumers. Rather, the relative importance of allochthonous subsidies for upper trophic level production should be addressed by considering the rates at which terrestrial and autochthonous resources are consumed and the growth efficiency supported by this food. Ultimately, the biochemical composition of a particular basal resource, and not just its quantity or origin, determines how readily this material is incorporated into upper trophic level consumers. Because of its highly favourable biochemical composition and greater availability, we conclude that microalgal production supports most animal production in freshwater ecosystems.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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