Impact of pool design on spider and dytiscid recolonization patterns in a restored fen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peatland pools present unique fauna and flora and contribute significantly to peatland biodiversity. The ecological functionality of artificial pools in restored peatlands is poorly documented. In this study, we investigated arthropod assemblages of 21 artificial pools in a restored fen in southeastern Canada and 16 pools from four pristine fens as reference ecosystems. Three years following restoration, predacious diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) and spiders (Araneae) were sampled within and around pools using minnow traps and pitfall traps, respectively. We used Bayesian community occupancy models to document arthropod recolonization. Twenty‐one dytiscid species were captured in pools. Dytiscid species richness was higher in artificial pools than in reference pools. Three dytiscid species were more likely to occur in deeper pools. Dytiscid species composition in artificial pools differed from reference pools. Seventy‐seven spider species were captured around pools. Spider species richness was higher around artificial pools than around reference pools. Seventeen spider species responded to vegetation cover, either positively or negatively. In contrast, spider species composition was similar between artificial and reference pools. We conclude that artificial pools should be along a gradient of pool depth, but also that fast‐growing vegetation should be introduced on pool margins to foster a quicker return of arthropod assemblages similar to reference 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".