Zooplankton assemblage structure and diversity since pre‐industrial times in relation to land use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim While it is now well accepted that human activities are having pronounced effects on natural ecosystems, regional variation in the rate and magnitude of various human impacts is unclear. Moreover, the effects of land use change on natural aquatic communities have only relatively recently begun to be explored. Our goal was to understand how and where assemblages of a central food web component of freshwater lakes have changed over the course of industrialization in relation to land use. Location Canada. Time period Pre‐1880 AD to present. Major taxa studied Cladoceran zooplankton. Methods As part of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Canadian Lake Pulse Network, we selected 101 lakes across Canada along a gradient of human impact to analyse subfossil cladoceran assemblages from sediment cores. We examined relationships between taxonomic and functional indicators of cladoceran assemblage change among lakes and through time. Results Contemporary assemblages were taxonomically and functionally less diverse locally relative to pre‐industrial assemblages (α‐diversity) and were structured by the degree of human impact in watersheds. Local α‐diversity losses were greatest in highly impacted lakes where agriculture and pasture are prevalent. While spatial homogenization (spatial β‐diversity) did not increase since pre‐industrial times as expected, temporal turnover (temporal β‐diversity) showed a non‐significant but increasing trend in highly impacted lakes, especially in urbanized watersheds. Main conclusions Cladoceran assemblages have changed significantly over the course of the Industrial period, and especially in more highly impacted watersheds, underscoring the important role of watershed land use in shaping diversity. However, indicators of cladoceran function have remained relatively conserved over time and land use change showed little impact on β‐diversity, despite important environmental variation. Overall, this research furthers our understanding of the health status of Canadian lakes and the consequences of human activities, especially agriculture and urbanization, on lake zooplankton.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".