From stream to surf zone: Differences in the composition and succession of Lake Superior macroinvertebrate communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benthic communities in the surf zone of the Laurentian Great Lakes were historically diverse assemblages with typically lotic taxa. Conditions were suitable for these lotic taxa due to wave activity and strong, nearshore currents. Due to anthropogenic stressors , including the introduction of Dreissena mussels, surf zone communities have been all but decimated in the lower Great Lakes. Remaining communities persist along the shorelines of Lake Superior , where they are influenced by lake conditions and tributary inputs. Despite their ecological importance, the relationship between these Great Lakes surf zone communities, nearby tributary communities, and the confluence (i.e., tributary mouth) communities has remained largely unexplored. This study compared the composition and succession of Lake Superior communities at three sites: tributary, confluence, and surf zone. Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers (n = 7 per site) were deployed for ∼ 28-day periods over the course of the ice-free season (May through October) to assess community composition. Although diversity was similar between sites, community composition was distinct between the sites across all sample periods. Overall, compositional shifts were greater along the shoreline community, followed by confluence and tributary communities. The magnitude of compositional shifts, as well as diversity and composition, varied across the sample periods. These results suggest these communities are distinct, exhibiting compositional shifts that appear to correspond with production peaks at each site. As warmer temperatures and intensified storms affect Lake Superior in the coming decades, it is important that further research explore the ecology of tributary, confluence, and surf zone communities to better preserve these fascinating communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".