MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of a colonizing, aquatic, non‐indigenous species

2009· article· en· W2001148982 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)EcologyPopulationBiologyPopulation density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Detecting the presence of rare species has interested ecologists and conservation biologists for many years. A particularly daunting application of this problem pertains to the detection of non‐indigenous species (NIS) as they colonize new ecosystems. Ethical issues prevent experimental additions of NIS to most natural systems to explore the relationship between sampling intensity and the detection probability of a colonizing NIS. Here we examine this question using a recently introduced water flea, Cercopagis pengoi , in Lake Ontario. The species has biphasic population development, with sexually‐produced ‘spring morphs’ developing prior to parthenogenetically‐produced ‘typical’ morphs. Thus, this biphasic morphology allows distinction between new colonists (spring morphs) from subsequent generations. We repeatedly sampled Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario for the presence of both spring and typical morphs. Probability of detection was positively related to both the number of samples taken and animal density in the lake; however, even highly intensive sampling (100 samples) failed to detect the species in early spring when densities were very low. Spatial variation was greatest when densities of Cercopagis were intermediate to low. Sub‐sampling, which increased space between adjacent samples, significantly decreased the number of samples required to reach greater, calculated detection probabilities on these dates. Typical sampling protocols for zooplankton have a low probability (< 0.2) of detecting the species unless population density is high. Results of this study suggest that early detection of colonizing, aquatic NIS may be optimized through use of a risk‐based sampling design, combined with high sampling intensity in areas deemed most vulnerable to invasion, rather than less intensive sampling at a wider array of sites.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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