A comparison of epifaunal invertebrate communities in native eelgrass<i>Zostera marina</i>and non-native<i>Zostera japonica</i>at Tsawwassen, BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of non-native species can alter the structure of local communities and ecosystems. Although there is concern over the negative effects imposed by introduced species, positive effects are also possible. Introduced species may facilitate local resident species by providing or modifying habitat; these positive effects are sometimes overlooked, but are important for decisions about the local management of non-native species. The introduction of Zostera japonica to the Northeast Pacific coast is a case of a non-native foundation species that appears to expand total eelgrass habitat area, potentially facilitating local eelgrass-inhabiting species. In this study, we asked whether the non-native Z. japonica provides habitat for eelgrass-dwelling invertebrates that is similar to its native congener, Z. marina. We systematically quantified invertebrate assemblages in the two eelgrass species and quantified eelgrass characteristics that are relevant to epifaunal habitat quality (e.g. shoot density and surface area). We found that Z. japonica supports a greater total abundance of the same invertebrate species found in Z. marina meadows; however, the relative abundance of invertebrate species differed between Z. japonica and Z. marina. This result is consistent with differences in the two congeners’ morphological characteristics, density of vegetative and reproductive shoots, and total blade surface area per square metre. We conclude that the expansion of total eelgrass habitat due to the introduction of Z. japonica appears to increase the available habitat for local epifaunal invertebrate communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".