Contamination and Wildlife Communities in Stormwater Detention Ponds in Guelph and the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, 1997 and 1998 Part I — Wildlife Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is veiy little information about the wildlife utilization of Stormwater detention ponds although such ponds often self-seed into wetland habitats. To inventory wildlife utilizing Stormwater ponds, a study was performed in 1997 and 1998 of 15 Stormwater ponds and one natural wetland varying in age from 3 to 22 years in the Guelph and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in Ontario, Canada. Seven of the Stormwater ponds were primarily open water with the aquatic vegetation accounting for less than 50% of the surface area. However, 90% of the surface area of four ponds was covered in aquatic vegetation. The surface area of those ponds covered with vegetation was positively correlated with total organic carbon and copper concentrations in sediment Invertebrate populations in the Stormwater ponds were often dominated by a single taxon. The most abundant benthic animals were tubificid worms or chironomidae. The number of taxa in sweep-net samples ranged from 4 to 25 and correlated positively with the age of the pond and total organic carbon in sediment The number of taxa in the benthos correlated negatively with oil and grease concentrations in sediment The range in number of amphibian species was one to seven in Guelph and zero to four in the GTA. In total, 40 species of birds were observed in the GTA ponds and 71 species were observed in the Guelph ponds during April to November 1997. A mean of 1.6 to 1.7 bird species was observed per survey at Stormwater ponds in Guelph and the GTA. The number of species of amphibians and birds did not correlate with water quality, sedimentology, contaminant concentration, percentage of surface area of the pond covered with plants, or any benthic community parameter measured. Four species of reptiles and eight species of mammals were noted at or adjacent to the Stormwater ponds and six species of fish were found in the ponds. We concluded that wildlife made use of the ponds, but species richness at almost all sites was low to moderate indicating that the ponds did not provide high quality habitat for wildlife
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".