Crop cover and nutrient levels mediate the effects of land management type on aquatic invertebrate richness in prairie potholes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic invertebrates provide important ecosystem services, including decomposition and nutrient cycling, and provide nutrition for birds, fish, amphibians, and bats. Thus, the effects of agricultural land management practices on aquatic invertebrates are relevant to farmers, wildlife biologists, and policymakers. Here, we used data on aquatic invertebrates (159 taxa, 73 to species, 75 to genus/family) collected in 40 wetlands in the Canadian prairies to test for direct and indirect relationships among land management types (perennial cover, organic, minimum tillage, conventional), landscape structure (cropland and wetland cover within the surrounding landscape), and water quality (total nutrient levels, turbidity) on species richness of invertebrates using structural equation modelling. Additionally, we assessed variation in community composition within and among wetlands in different land use management types using a direct gradient analysis and variance partitioning. The direct effects of land management type were not supported but we found strong supportive evidence that effects of land management on richness were significantly mediated through cropland cover, nutrient levels, and turbidity. After controlling for these indirect effects, aquatic invertebrate richness decreased along a gradient from the lowest to the highest farming intensity, i.e., richness decreased from perennial cover sites to organic to minimum tillage to conventional sites. Support was also found for negative effects of nutrient levels and turbidity on richness. We did not find significant support for differences in gamma diversity or a simple test (homogeneity of multivariate dispersions) of differences in turnover among land management types; however, land management had a significant effect in distance-based redundancy analysis. Taken together, these results suggest that focusing conservation efforts on reducing cropland erosion and nutrient inputs to wetlands and creating more permanent cover may be effective strategies for conserving richness of aquatic invertebrates in agricultural landscapes in this region.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".