Consumer responses to resource patch size and architecture: leaf packs in streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulations of leaf litter in freshwaters can vary from individual leaves to large leaf packs. Past studies have demonstrated that decomposition rates decrease as leaf pack size increases. We considered a set of hypotheses that lower breakdown in larger leaf packs occurs as a consequence of diffusion gradients of oxygen and nutrients, or lower accessibility to larger detritivores to leaf tissue in the middle of these leaf packs. We manipulated leaf pack size in a stream to quantify decomposition rates and the abundances of consumers relative to the amount of detrital mass available. Mass loss rates of beech leaves were lower as leaf pack size increased. We found no differences in fungal biomass across our treatment gradients, or when comparing leaves in the middle of the leaf pack versus those on the outside. The lower decomposition of larger leaf packs would thus not result from a lower quality of the resource based on fungal biomass. Invertebrates per unit mass of leaf packs declined exponentially with size of leaf pack. Smaller invertebrates were less abundant per unit of resource as leaf pack size increased, but abundances of larger invertebrates declined even more dramatically than that of smaller ones. The results are consistent with accessibility within leaf packs decreasing as leaf pack size increases, a factor that is important for the estimation of consumer-resource functions for this patchy resource.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".