Development of aquatic communities in aggregate ponds in southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extraction of aggregates (sand and gravel, limestone) below the water table results in the creation of pit and quarry ponds. Under the Aggregate Resources Act of Ontario (ARA), rehabilitation plans are required to obtain an aggregate extraction license. During this study I surveyed 12 pits and 3 quarries, ranging from 0-25 years old, for morphometric, chemical, physical and biological features to determine the effect of pond age and pond volume on succession of aquatic communities, and the potential of aggregate ponds for use as fish habitat. The results show that of the parameters studied, organic periphyton biomass and macrophyte biomass and species richness are significantly correlated to pond age. Macrophyte biomass was the only parameter significantly correlated to pond volume. The data indicate that colonization by benthic macroinvertebrates and zooplankton occurs quickly after extraction ceases. Abundance, species richness, and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and zooplankton in young ponds (<1 year old) was similar to that of older ponds (10 to 25 years old). Results show that aggregate ponds do provide a productive biological environment, which could be exploited for a variety of active or passive after-use activities, such as sport fisheries or conservation related activities that fit into the surrounding land use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".