Fish predation on Eurasian watermilfoil (<i>Myriophyllum spicatum</i>) herbivores and indirect effects on macrophytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the effect of fish predation on native and naturalized insect herbivores of the invasive aquatic plant Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) using manipulative field experiments within lakes and a field survey across lakes. For the field experiments, we manipulated sunfish (Lepomis spp.) density in cages in the littoral plant beds of two contrasting lakes: one with many sunfish, few watermilfoil herbivores, and abundant Eurasian watermilfoil; and one with few sunfish, many herbivores, and little Eurasian watermilfoil. Watermilfoil herbivores, including the milfoil weevil (Euhrychiopsis lecontei) and aquatic caterpillars, were suppressed by fish in both experiments. Herbivore density was also negatively related to sunfish abundance in the multiple-lake survey. We conclude that abundant sunfish can strongly suppress watermilfoil herbivores. Furthermore, in one of our experiments there was a marginally significant effect of fish exclosure on watermilfoil, suggesting that fish suppression of watermilfoil herbivores can have a positive, indirect effect on plant growth. Fish predation on macrophyte herbivores may be an important trophic interaction in freshwater lakes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".