MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979223422 · doi:10.1139/f05-248

Rapid food web recovery in response to removal of an introduced apex predator

2006· article· en· W1979223422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jesse M. Lepak, Clifford E. Kraft, Brian C. Weidel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicropterusTrophic levelBiologyFood webTroutApex predatorPredatorForage fishEcologyPredationPredatory fishTrophic cascadeSalvelinusIntroduced speciesFisheryBass (fish)Fish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-native species have increased extinction rates, decreased diversity, altered organism distributions, and constrained ecosystem functioning in native aquatic and terrestrial communities. Although widespread fish introductions have dramatically altered fish communities in north temperate lakes, restoration of native fish communities has been rarely accomplished. This study evaluated a native fish community restoration using a stable isotope based metric. Stable isotopes from a native apex predator (lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)) were used to measure food web changes following removal of a dominant non-native apex predator (smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)). Prior to bass removal, lake trout consumed primarily invertebrates. Within 2 years of the initiation of an experimental removal effort, lake trout δ 13 C values (–25.9‰ to –24.9‰) and trophic position (3.5–3.9) increased, reflecting a switch to prey fish consumption that was supported by stomach contents analyses. Here, we show the rapid reestablishment of food web linkages within a native fish community in response to changes in principal energy sources and trophic position of a native apex predator along with the ability to quantify the extent of these changes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations58
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207