Invertebrate communities of Bay of Fundy salt marsh pools: comparison of a natural and recovering marsh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disturbed salt marshes may recover with little additional management once tidal inundation is restored. We assessed the success of such recovery by comparing the invertebrate biota of Bay of Fundy salt marsh pools in a reference site at Dipper Harbour to that of Saints Rest marsh that had been drained for over a century and to which tidal flooding had been returned ~50 years prior to our study. The sediments and vegetation of salt marsh pools were sampled seasonally throughout one year. Average biomass of pool invertebrates ranged from 1.8 to 4.0 g dry wt m−2, depending on the amount of vegetation cover in the pools. The most abundant organisms of the pools were the gastropod Ecrobia truncata (=Hydrobia tottentei), Tubificidae (=Naididae) oligochaetes, and Chironomidae (=Chironomini). We compared overall abundance and biomass of the invertebrates in the pool communities, assessing the month of sampling, pool elevation, and source marsh as explanatory variables. Our analyses revealed that marsh origin of pools seldom explained a significant amount of variance, and when it did, the proportion of variance explained was usually lower than elevation of pools and month of sampling. Diversity of invertebrates found in all pools was higher at the recovering site with species richness >40% higher than in the reference site. We conclude that after an estimated 50 years since dyke failure and return of tidal flooding to Saints Rest marsh, that the ecosystem function represented by pools and their fauna has recovered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".