MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Freshwater invasions: using historical data to analyse spread

2007· article· en· W1854628942 on OpenAlexaff
Sarina E. Loo, Reuben P. Keller, Brian Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)StockingEcologyFishingFreshwater fishInvasive speciesBiologyFreshwater snailGeographyFisheryEcosystemIntroduced speciesSnailFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Aquatic invasive species cause deleterious environmental and economic impacts, and are rapidly spreading through ecosystems worldwide. Despite this, very few data sets exist that describe both the presence and the absence of invaders over long time periods. We have used Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to analyse time‐series data describing the spread of the freshwater invasive New Zealand mudsnail,Potamopyrgus antipodarum, in Victoria, Australia, over 110 years. We have mapped the snail's spread, estimated the percentage of stream length invaded through time, calculated the functional form of the spread rate, and investigated the role that the two proposed vectors — fish stocking and angling — have had in this invasion. Since it was first found in 1895,P. antipodarumhas expanded its range in Victoria and now occurs throughout much of the southern and central areas of the state. The north of the state is relatively less invaded than the south, with the division corresponding approximately to the presence of the Great Dividing Range. We show that the snail's range has been increasing at an approximately exponential rate and estimate that 20% of total Victorian stream length is currently invaded. We also show that using long‐term data can change the outcome of analyses of the relationship between vectors of spread and invasion status of separate catchments. When our time‐series data were aggregated through time, the total numbers of fish stocking events and angling activity were both correlated with invasion. However, when the time‐series data were used and the number of fish stocking events calculated up until the date of invasion, no relationships with stocking were found. These results underline the role that time‐series data, based on both presences and absences, have to play when investigating the spread of invasive species.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207