Environmental controls on benthic food web functions and carbon resource use in subarctic lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate warming and consequent greening of subarctic landscapes increase the availability of organic carbon to the detrital food webs in aquatic ecosystems. This may cause important shifts in ecosystem functioning through the functional feeding patterns of benthic organisms that rely differently on climatically altered carbon resources. Twenty‐five subarctic lakes in Finnish Lapland across a tree line ecotone were analysed for limnological and optical variables, carbon (δ 13 C) and nitrogen (δ 15 N) stable isotope ( SI ) composition of surface sediment organic matter ( OM ) and fossil Chironomidae (Diptera) remains to examine environmental controls behind chironomid functional feeding group ( FFG ) structure and their isotopic associations for assessing ecosystem functioning and carbon utilisation. We hypothesise that the chironomid SI signatures reflect increased allochthony with increasing allochthonous input, but the resource use may be altered by the functional characteristics of the assemblage. Multivariate analyses indicated that carbon geochemistry in the sediments (δ 13 C, δ 15 N, C/N), nutrients, indices of productivity (chlorophyll‐ a ) and lake water optical properties, related to increasing presence of OM , played a key role in defining the chironomid FFG composition and isotopic signatures. Response modelling was used to examine how individual FFG s respond to environmental gradients. They showed divergent responses for OM quantity, dissolved organic carbon and nutrients between feeding strategies, suggesting that detritivores and filter feeders prefer contrasting carbon and nutrient conditions, and may thus hold paleoecological indicator potential to identify changes between different carbon fluxes. Benthic production was the primary carbon source for the chironomid assemblages according to a three‐source SI mixing model, whereas pelagic and terrestrial components contributed less. Between‐lake variability in source utilisation was high and controlled primarily by allochthonous OM inputs. Combination of biogeochemical modelling and functional classification is useful to widen our understanding of subarctic lake ecosystem functions and responses to climate‐driven changes in limnology and catchment characteristics for long‐term environmental change assessments and functional paleoecology.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".