MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967023106 · doi:10.5061/dryad.p5hqbzkwk

Nutrients from spawning salmon influence leaf area, tissue density, and nitrogen-15 in riparian plant leaves

2024· dataset· en· W6967023106 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiparian zoneNutrientEcosystemSTREAMSInvertebrateBiodiversityOncorhynchus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrient subsidies have significant impacts on ecosystems by connecting disjunct habitats, often through long distance animal migrations. Salmon migrations on the North Pacific coasts provide these kinds of nutrient subsidies from senescent fish at the end of their life cycle, which can have significant ecological effects on terrestrial species. This can include impacts on individuals, populations, and communities, where shifts in community composition towards nitrophilic plant species have been documented. We investigated the effects of variation in salmon spawning density on the leaf traits of four common riparian plant species on the central coast of British Columbia, Canada. We found that all plant species had higher foliar salmon-derived nitrogen on streams with a higher spawning density. Three of the four species had larger leaves, and one species also had higher leaf mass per area on streams with more salmon. However, we found no differences in leaf greenness or foliar percent nitrogen among our study streams. These results demonstrate that nutrient subsidies from spawning salmon can have significant impacts on the ecology, morphology, and physiology of riparian plants, which lends support to a mechanism by which certain plants are more common on productive salmon streams. Our findings therefore have broader implications for salmon ecosystems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.022

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207