Facilitation effects of invasive and farmed bivalves on native populations of the sea slug Pleurobranchaea maculata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 537:39-48 (2015) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11466 Facilitation effects of invasive and farmed bivalves on native populations of the sea slug Pleurobranchaea maculata David I. Taylor1,*, Susanna A. Wood1,2, Paul McNabb1, Shaun Ogilvie1, Chris Cornelisen1, Jarrod Walker3, Serena Khor2, Stephen Craig Cary2 1Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax Street, 7010 Nelson, New Zealand 2University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, 3240 Hamilton, New Zealand 3Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300, 1142 Auckland, New Zealand *Corresponding author: david.taylor@cawthron.org.nz ABSTRACT: Invasive and native bivalves can facilitate higher trophic levels through habitat provision and food subsidies. In New Zealand, interest in the predatory sea slug Pleurobranchaea maculata increased when 10 dogs died after contact with beach-cast slugs on Narrow Neck Beach (Hauraki Gulf, Auckland) in August 2009. Investigations identified large populations of native P. maculata containing the deadly neurotoxin tetrodotoxin on nearshore beds of the invasive mussel Arcuatula (Musculista) senhousia. Subsequent studies revealed extensive populations of P. maculata beneath native Perna canaliculus mussel farms in Tasman Bay (Nelson, New Zealand). This study investigated whether P. maculata benefit from the trophic subsidy and/or habitat complexity provided by introduced and farmed mussels. Isotopic analysis suggested that P. maculata from Hauraki Gulf and Tasman Bay were most likely feeding on filter-feeding bivalves. Analysis of stomach contents using real-time PCR confirmed A. senhousia as a dietary source for P. maculata at one Hauraki Gulf site, and Perna canaliculus and Mytilus edulis (blue mussel) as dietary sources at Tasman Bay. Artificial habitat experiments in the Hauraki Gulf were confounded by a die-back of A. senhousia beds, but in their absence, P. maculata also disappeared. In Tasman Bay, P. maculata laid eggs on artificial mussel shell treatments beneath mussel farms, but no recruitment was recorded. Subsequent recruitment (ca. 2.7 P. maculata recruits per linear metre) was observed on overlying suspended mussel lines. Spatial and temporal changes in the availability of the food subsidy and habitat provided by native and invasive bivalves clearly have facilitative effects on P. maculata populations. KEY WORDS: Facilitation · Invasive species · Bivalve · Ecosystem engineering · Pleurobranchaea maculata · Arcuatula senhousia Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Taylor DI, Wood SA, McNabb P, Ogilvie S and others (2015) Facilitation effects of invasive and farmed bivalves on native populations of the sea slug Pleurobranchaea maculata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 537:39-48. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11466 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 537. Online publication date: October 14, 2015 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2015 Inter-Research.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".