MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1835396126 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0549

Has the Hudson River fish community recovered from the zebra mussel invasion along with its forage base?

2014· article· en· W1835396126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David L. Strayer, Kathryn A. Hattala, Andrew Kahnle, Robert D. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHudson River Foundation
KeywordsMacrobenthosLittoral zoneDreissenaZebra musselBiomass (ecology)Abundance (ecology)BiologyEcologyFisheryZooplanktonHydrobiologyBivalviaMusselMolluscaAquatic environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first decade after zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) appeared in the Hudson River, the biomass of zooplankton and deepwater macrobenthos fell by ∼50%, while the biomass of littoral macrobenthos rose by >10%. These changes in the forage base were associated with large, differential changes in the abundance, geographic distribution, and growth rates of openwater and littoral fish. In recent years, populations of zooplankton and deepwater macrobenthos have risen towards pre-invasion levels, while littoral macrobenthos remained unchanged. We therefore hypothesized that the abundance, distribution, and growth rates of openwater fish species would shift back towards pre-invasion levels, while littoral fish species would not change. Our analysis of large data sets for young-of-year fishes found no systematic change in the abundance or geographic distribution of either group of fish in the Hudson. We did find a marked increase in growth rates of openwater fish, but no change in growth rates of littoral fish, in support of our hypothesis. Our study shows that the ecological effects of a biological invasion may change over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207