MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074727763 · doi:10.1139/f04-149

Changes in the crustacean communities of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie following the invasion of the predatory cladoceran<i>Bythotrephes</i><i>longimanus</i>

2004· article· en· W2074727763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard P. Barbiero, Marc L. Tuchman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsZooplanktonBiologyEcologyPredationCrustaceanInvertebrateCladoceraCyclopsBranchiopodaDaphnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crustacean zooplankton communities in Lakes Michigan and Huron and the central and eastern basins of Lake Erie have shown substantial, persistent changes since the invasion of the predatory cladoceran Bythotrephes in the mid-1980s. A number of cladoceran species have declined dramatically since the invasion, including Eubosmina coregoni, Holopedium gibberum, Daphnia retrocurva, Daphnia pulicaria, and Leptodora kindti, and overall species richness has decreased as a result. Copepods have been relatively unaffected, with the notable exception of Meso cyclops edax, which has virtually disappeared from the lakes. These species shifts have for the most part been consistent and equally pronounced across all three lakes. Responses of crustacean species to the Bythotrephes invasion do not appear to be solely a consequence of size, and it is likely that other factors, e.g., morphology, vertical distribution, or escape responses, are important determinants of vulnerability to predation. Our results indicate that invertebrate predators in general, and invasive ones in particular, can have pronounced, lasting effects on zooplankton community structure.

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)0.001
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 score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations161
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207