MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043574790 · doi:10.1899/08-188.1

Intraguild interactions and large-scale population patterns

2009· article· en· W2043574790 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julie Sircom, Sandra J. Walde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the North American Benthological Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsIntraguild predationPredationAbundance (ecology)BiologyEcologySTREAMSPredatorInvertebratePopulationRelative species abundance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Competitive interactions, including interference and intraguild predation, occur in many aquatic food webs and influence large-scale patterns of abundance, especially in lentic habitats. In a study of small coastal streams in eastern Canada, we found patterns suggesting that abundances of a predatory invertebrate, Sweltsa onkos (Plecoptera:Chloroperlidae), are influenced by another predator, Rhyacophila vibox (Trichoptera:Rhyacophilidae). Larval densities of the 2 species were inversely correlated, and mortality of larval S. onkos tended to be higher in streams with many R. vibox. Abundance and mortality of a 3rd predatory species, Isoperla montana (Plecoptera:Perlodidae), were unrelated to abundances of the other species. Laboratory behavioral observations confirmed that interactions between R. vibox and S. onkos were asymmetrical; high densities of R. vibox led to higher injury and mortality rates and lower growth rates of S. onkos, whereas S. onkos had no effect on R. vibox growth or mortality. Previous work has shown that R. vibox reaches high densities only in streams with few or no fish, and we conclude that the relative abundances of S. onkos and R. vibox in the study streams might be influenced by differences in vulnerability to intraguild and fish predation.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the North American Benthological SocietySame topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFrench-language works237,207