Meta‐analysis suggests biotic resistance in freshwater environments is driven by consumption rather than competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Native communities are thought to mediate the establishment and performance of invasive species through competitive and consumptive interactions, a concept referred to as “biotic resistance.” We investigated the generality of this concept across ecosystems. Despite the conspicuousness of freshwater invasions, investigations of biotic resistance have focused mostly on terrestrial and, more recently, marine coastal communities. We collected in‐situ studies that tested the impacts of native freshwater communities on invading primary producers and consumers. Meta‐analysis demonstrated that evidence of competitive biotic resistance in freshwater habitats was not as strong as that in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In freshwater ecosystems consumptive resistance was significantly stronger than competitive resistance and consumptive resistance appeared to be as strong in freshwater as in marine and terrestrial systems. The limited number of studies considering freshwater biotic resistance hindered our ability to understand the importance of factors including latitude, experimental duration, and method. However, the strength of biotic resistance varied among freshwater habitats; specifically, biotic resistance was strongest in lentic environments. Our analysis identifies mechanisms underlying biotic resistance in freshwater ecosystems that warrant further investigation given the potential ongoing and future impacts of invasive species in these systems.
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".