Microhabitat selection by the invasive amphipod <i>Echinogammarus ischnus</i> and native <i>Gammarus fasciatus</i> in laboratory experiments and in Lake Erie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY 1. The amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus was first reported in the Laurentian Great Lakes during 1995. However, analysis of archived samples revealed the presence of the species from western Lake Erie in 1994 and possibly as early as 1993. 2. Surveys conducted in Lake Erie between 1995 and 1998 revealed that Echinogammarus was the dominant amphipod on rocks covered by Dreissena molluscs compared with those fouled by the filamentous alga Cladophora, while Gammarus fasciatus used both Dreissena and Cladophora substrata extensively. 3. In laboratory habitat selection studies, Echinogammarus chose Dreissena‐ over Cladophora‐encrusted rocks and bare rocks, while Gammarus occupied the more complex substrata equally. 4. Field colonisation experiments demonstrated that the densities of Echinogammarus and Gammarus were positively correlated when the total density of the species was low, in contrast to the large‐scale natural distribution of the species that revealed a strong inverse relationship. 5. The on‐going replacement of Gammarus by Echinogammarus in the Laurentian Great Lakes may be related to the stronger affinity of the latter for substrata fouled by Dreissena, a genus with which it co‐evolved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".