MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Landscape‐scale determinants of non‐native fish communities

2011· article· en· W1529237623 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas W. R. Lapointe, Theo Light

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsSpecies richnessIntroduced speciesEcologyEcosystemInvasive speciesGeographyBiodiversityNative plantCommunity structureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Predicting and preventing invasions depends on knowledge of the factors that make ecosystems susceptible to invasion. Current studies generally rely on non‐native species richness (NNSR) as the sole measure of ecosystem invasibility; however, species identity is a critical consideration, given that different ecosystems may have environmental characteristics suitable to different species. Our aim was to examine whether non‐native freshwater fish community composition was related to ecosystem characteristics at the landscape scale. Location United States. Methods We described spatial patterns in non‐native freshwater fish communities among watersheds in the Mid‐Atlantic region of the United States based on records of establishment in the U.S. Geological Survey’s Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. We described general relationships between non‐native species and ecosystem characteristics using canonical correspondence analysis. We clustered watersheds by non‐native fish community and described differences among clusters using indicator species analysis. We then assessed whether non‐native communities could be predicted from ecosystem characteristics using random forest analysis and predicted non‐native communities for uninvaded watersheds. We estimated which ecosystem characteristics were most important for predicting non‐native communities using conditional inference trees. Results We identified four non‐native fish communities, each with distinct indicator species. Non‐native communities were predicted based on ecosystem characteristics with an accuracy of 80.6%, with temperature as the most important variable. Relatively uninvaded watersheds were predicted to be invasible by the most diverse non‐native community. Main conclusions Non‐native species identity is an important consideration when assessing ecosystem invasibility. NNSR alone is an insufficient measure of invasibility because ecosystems with equal NNSR may not be equally invasible by the same species. Our findings can help improve predictions of future invasions and focus management and policy decisions on particular species in highly invasible 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207