MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149658111 · doi:10.1139/f03-116

Indirect effects of zebra mussels (<i>Dreissena polymorpha</i>) on the planktonic food web

2003· article· en· W2149658111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erik G. Noonburg, Brian J. Shuter, Peter A. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsDreissenaZebra musselZooplanktonPhytoplanktonPlanktonFood webBenthic zoneEcologyBiologyTrophic levelMusselAbiotic componentBenthosTrophic cascadeEnvironmental scienceFisheryBivalviaMollusca

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has caused dramatic reductions in phytoplankton density in lakes with dense mussel populations. However, the indirect effects of this invader on other trophic groups have been inconsistent and difficult to interpret. In some lakes, zebra mussels appear to have had little effect on zooplankton density, despite decreasing the abundance of their phytoplankton prey. We analyze food web models to test hypothesized mechanisms for the absence of a strong effect of dreissenids on zooplankton. Our results suggest that neither reduced inedible algal interference with zooplankton filtering nor reduced phytoplankton self-shading is sufficient to explain the insensitivity of zooplankton populations to dreissenid competition. Instead, we show how the impact of benthic filter feeders can be influenced by the rate of mixing within a basin, which limits phytoplankton delivery to the benthos. We explore the predictions of a simple spatially structured model and demonstrate that differences in abiotic factors that control mixing can result in large differences in direct and indirect effects of zebra mussel filtering.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.179 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207