A comparison of the effects of beaver ponds and forest harvest on stream methylmercury in boreal watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Beaver ponds and forest harvest are common disturbances in the Canadian boreal forest that result in major changes to catchment hydrology and thus also influence the mobilization and methylation of mercury (Hg). Though both beaver ponds and forest harvest frequently occur in the same watersheds, the possible interactive effects are not well understood. To evaluate the comparative effects of these two disturbances, this study examined in-stream total mercury and methylmercury (MeHg) across 7 stream reaches in the central Canadian boreal forest. Results showed that downstream-to-upstream MeHg concentration ratios were more highly correlated to the presence of beaver ponds than to the presence of forest harvest. However, MeHg concentrations upstream of ponds were higher in streams within harvested watersheds; these streams demonstrated a weaker correlation between beaver pond presence and downstream-to-upstream MeHg concentration ratios. Understanding these comparative and cumulative effects of beaver ponds and forest harvest will allow forest managers to consider how harvest activity could affect downstream MeHg in areas with high beaver activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".