The ecological consequences of unpalatable prey: phytoplankton response to nutrient and predator additions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent theoretical and laboratory studies have suggested that unpalatable prey modify the degree to which trophic levels are regulated by bottom‐up or top‐down forces such that primarily edible communities are regulated by predation and primarily unpalatable communities are regulated by resource supply. Despite the hypothesised importance of prey edibility, experiments have only rarely examined the response of primary producers to nutrient enrichment or the addition of a top trophic level following the reduction or elimination of inedible species. I performed two experiments in aquatic enclosures in which the prey (phytoplankton) had been manipulated to create treatments composed either nearly exclusively of only edible phytoplankton or with both edible and inedible phytoplankton. In the first experiment, the two types of phytoplankton community were subjected to either high or low nutrient concentrations. In the second experiment, the two types of phytoplankton community were present in enclosures with either 2 or 3 trophic levels. I found that the impact of both the nutrients and the number of trophic levels on total phytoplankton biomass was modified by the edibility of the phytoplankton community. Although enclosures with only edible phytoplankton were able to increase with enrichment, there was a greater overall phytoplankton biomass in enclosures with both edible and inedible phytoplankton. The addition of a third trophic level had a positive effect on phytoplankton biomass when only edible phytoplankton were present, but had no effect on phytoplankton biomass when both edible and inedible phytoplankton were present. These results therefore provide support for the hypothesis that the proportion of inedible phytoplankton determines the degree to which communities are regulated by top‐down or bottom‐up forces.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".