Influence of light on the foraging impact of an introduced predatory cladoceran, <i><scp>B</scp>ythotrephes longimanus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Identifying factors that influence the foraging ability of an introduced predator is essential for assessing its potential impact on the invaded community. We conducted a series of in situ enclosure experiments to determine the effect of light on the foraging ability and community‐level effects of the invasive cladoceran Bythotrephes longimanus in lakes. In 1‐L enclosures with only Daphnia prey, a strong effect of predation under ambient light conditions was observed. There was no evidence of predation in dark treatments, suggesting that Bythotrephes is unable to feed by mechanoreception alone. A subsequent experiment using larger enclosures exposed an assemblage of prey from an uninvaded lake to Bythotrephes predation across a similar light gradient. Consistent with regional lake surveys, Bythotrephes reduced cladoceran abundance under ambient light conditions. At the community level, predation effects were overall strongest under ambient light; however, the influence of light on predation varied across trials that differed in initial community structure of prey. Also, some predation under dark conditions was possible on Ceriodaphnia and Bosmina, suggesting that Daphnia, in particular, may be less vulnerable under low‐light conditions. Our results suggest that light refuges for some prey taxa could play an important role in mediating the impact of Bythotrephes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".