Litter identity affects assimilation of carbon and nitrogen by a shredding caddisfly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ecologists often equate litter quality with decomposition rate. In soil and sediments, litter that is rapidly decomposed by microbes often has low concentrations of tannin and lignin and low C:N ratios. Do these same traits also favor element transfer to higher trophic levels in streams, where many insects depend on litter as their primary food source? We test the hypothesis that slow decomposition rates promote element transfer from litter to insects, whereas rapid decomposition favors microbes. We measured carbon and nitrogen fluxes from four plant species to a leaf‐shredding caddisfly using isotopically labeled litter. Caddisflies assimilated a higher percentage of litter carbon and nitrogen lost from slowly decomposing litters (Platanus wrightii and Quercus gambelii). In contrast, rapidly decomposing litters (Fraxinus velutina and Populus fremontii) supported higher microbial biomass. These results challenge the view that rapidly decomposing litter is higher quality by demonstrating that slowly decomposing litters provide a critical resource for insects.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".