Assessing long‐term diatom changes in sub‐<scp>A</scp>rctic ponds receiving high fluxes of seabird nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Algal bioindicators, such as diatoms, often show subdued responses to eutrophication in Arctic lakes because climate‐related changes (e.g., ice cover) tend to be the overriding factors influencing assemblage composition. Here, we examined how sub‐Arctic ponds historically receiving high nutrient inputs from nesting seabirds have responded to recent climate change. We present diatom data obtained from 12 sediment cores in seaduck‐affected ponds located on islands through Hudson Strait, Canada. All study cores show consistently elevated values of sedimentary ẟ15N, an established proxy for tracking marine‐derived nutrients, indicating seabirds have been present on these islands for at least the duration of the sediment records (~100 to 400 years). We document diverse epiphytic diatom assemblages to the base of all sediment cores, which is in marked contrast to seabird‐free Arctic ponds—these oligotrophic sites typically record epilithic diatom flora prior to recent warming. Diatoms are likely responding indirectly to seabird nutrients via habitat as nutrients promote the growth of mosses supporting epiphytic diatom communities. This masks the typical diatom response to increased warming in the Arctic, which also results in habitat changes and the growth of mosses around the pond edges. Changes in sedimentary chlorophyll a were not consistently synchronous with large changes in ẟ15N values, suggesting that primary production in ponds is not responding linearly to changes in seabird‐derived nitrogen. Across all ponds, we recorded shifts in diatom epiphytic assemblages (e.g., increases in % relative abundance of many Nitzschia species) that often align with increases in chlorophyll a. The changes in diatoms and chlorophyll a, although variable, are most likely driven by climate change as they are generally consistent with longer ice‐free conditions and growing seasons. Together, our results show that to effectively use diatoms in animal population reconstructions across the sub‐Arctic and Arctic, a strong understanding of eutrophication and climate change, based on supplementary proxies, is also required.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".