Fish introductions and light modulate food web fluxes in tropical streams: a whole‐ecosystem experimental approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decades of ecological study have demonstrated the importance of top‐down and bottom‐up controls on food webs, yet few studies within this context have quantified the magnitude of energy and material fluxes at the whole‐ecosystem scale. We examined top‐down and bottom‐up effects on food web fluxes using a field experiment that manipulated the presence of a consumer, the Trinidadian guppy Poecilia reticulata, and the production of basal resources by thinning the riparian forest canopy to increase incident light. To gauge the effects of these reach‐scale manipulations on food web fluxes, we used a nitrogen (15N) stable isotope tracer to compare basal resource treatments (thinned canopy vs. control) and consumer treatments (guppy introduction vs. control). The thinned canopy stream had higher primary production than the natural canopy control, leading to increased N fluxes to invertebrates that feed on benthic biofilms (grazers), fine benthic organic matter (collector‐gatherers), and organic particles suspended in the water column (filter feeders). Stream reaches with guppies also had higher primary productivity and higher N fluxes to grazers and filter feeders. In contrast, N fluxes to collector‐gatherers were reduced in guppy introduction reaches relative to upstream controls. N fluxes to leaf‐shredding invertebrates, predatory invertebrates, and the other fish species present (Hart's killifish, Anablepsoides hartii) did not differ across light or guppy treatments, suggesting that effects on detritus‐based linkages and upper trophic levels were not as strong. Effect sizes of guppy and canopy treatments on N flux rates were similar for most taxa, though guppy effects were the strongest for filter feeding invertebrates while canopy effects were the strongest for collector‐gatherer invertebrates. Combined, these results extend previous knowledge about top‐down and bottom‐up controls on ecosystems by providing experimental, reach‐scale evidence that both pathways can act simultaneously and have equally strong influence on nutrient fluxes from inorganic pools through primary consumers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".