MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1969983945 · doi:10.1139/f10-016

Potential and realized interactions between two aquatic invasive species: Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)

2010· article· en· W1969983945 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
María José Maezo, Henri Fournier, Beatrix E. Beisner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsCrayfishMyriophyllumBiological dispersalBiologyEcologyHabitatIntroduced speciesInvasive speciesBiomass (ecology)Aquatic plantMacrophytePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With multiple invasions, the potential arises for interactions between invasives inhibiting or promoting spread. Our goal was to investigate the interaction between two invasives, Eurasian watermilfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatum ) and rusty crayfish ( Orconectes rusticus ), which co-occur in several lakes in western Quebec, Canada, and to determine their overlap with littoral fish communities. Crayfish potentially aid milfoil dispersal by fragmentation or, alternatively, inhibit its proliferation through destruction and direct consumption. With a mesocosm experiment, we quantified milfoil fragment production versus biomass reduction by crayfish. More fragments were produced at medium to high crayfish densities, with a significant reduction of milfoil only at the highest densities, demonstrating the potential for both positive and negative interactions. Second, we determined the habitat preferences of each species by conducting a survey in the same lake. There was little overlap in the species’ distributions, with each preferring different habitat features, indicating either a low probability of interaction or that interaction occurred historically, resulting in a contemporary exclusion pattern. While our experiment showed a potential for significant interaction, the low natural co-occurrence of these species suggests that they do not currently influence each other or that they previously excluded each other.

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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→