Scale‐dependence and mechanisms of dispersal in freshwater zooplankton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities of organisms form as a result of both interspecific and abiotic interactions within local habitat patches and dispersal among patches in a region. Local processes are expected to play a dominant role when dispersal occurs much more often than extinction. We performed two field experiments to examine rates and mechanisms of dispersal in freshwater pond zooplankton communities. First, we tested the effect of distance from a source on the rate of colonization of artificial habitat by placing wading pools at 5, 10, 30 and 60 m from two natural fishless ponds and observing the succession of zooplankton. Seventy‐eight percent of the species in the source ponds that were capable of living in the pools colonized at least once during the experiment. A new species was found in the pools on average once every four days, suggesting that colonization events occur on the order of days to weeks for many species. Colonization rates declined further from the source at one pond but not the other, and the effect of distance was relatively weak at both ponds. This suggests that many species disperse broadly over short distances. The second experiment tested the role of animal vectors for zooplankton dispersal by restricting access to the pools. Eight treatments were imposed that excluded potential animal vectors along a body size gradient from large mammals to small insects. While the treatments affected zooplankton colonization, many species invaded even when all animals larger than 1 mm were excluded. Animal vectors may therefore be less important for dispersal than wind. Our results suggest that zooplankton are highly effective dispersers over short distances, and can disperse via several mechanisms. Local interactions should therefore play a dominant role in structuring these communities at small regional scales.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".