MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504475992 · doi:10.1002/ecy.1530

Fish introductions and light modulate food web fluxes in tropical streams: a whole‐ecosystem experimental approach

2016· article· en· W2504475992 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah M. Collins, Steven A. Thomas, Thomas Heatherly, Keeley L. MacNeill, Antoine O. H. C. Leduc, Andrés López‐Sepulcre, Bradley A. Lamphere, Rana W. El‐Sabaawi, David N. Reznick, Catherine M. Pringle, Alexander S. Flecker

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFood webEcologyEnvironmental scienceGuppyBenthic zoneBiologyCanopyEcosystemTrophic levelMacrophyteFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 ( 15 N) 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207