Dispersal acts as both bane and balm for invaded zooplankton communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersal of native species from the regional pool can recover invaded communities to a pre-invaded state by supplementing declining populations or providing resistant species. However, dispersal may also exacerbate the negative effects of an invader. Introduced species can open or create new niche space, which could facilitate the establishment of competitors or predators that previously could not succeed in the uninvaded local community. To investigate the interaction between dispersal and invasion by a non-native consumer, we conducted a field mesocosm experiment that introduced zebra mussels into native zooplankton communities. Regional zooplankton were collected and added to both invaded and uninvaded communities. In uninvaded communities, zooplankton dispersal reduced cladoceran diversity by ∼40%, rotifer abundance by ∼65% and copepod nauplii abundance by ∼80%. In invaded communities, dispersal increased cladoceran diversity by ∼60%, but also further exacerbated the negative effects of zebra mussels on rotifer abundance. This experiment illustrates the potential for dispersal to both positively and negatively affect local communities, and how these effects may change with disturbance and the taxa or community metric of study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".