MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582327658 · doi:10.1111/fwb.12897

Does the strength of cross‐ecosystem trophic cascades vary with ecosystem size? A test using a natural microcosm

2017· article· en· W2582327658 on OpenAlexafffund
Paula M. de Omena, Diane S. Srivastava, Gustavo Q. Romero

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsTrophic levelTrophic cascadeFood webEcologyPredationEcosystemBiologyBiomass (ecology)DetritivoreInvertebrateHabitatMesopredator release hypothesisApex predator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The cascading effect of predators on the functioning of adjacent ecosystems can occur when the life cycles of their prey include two ecosystems. However, there has been little consideration of which habitat attributes can modify the strength of these cross‐ecosystem trophic cascades. Habitat size can mediate the strength of predator–prey interactions, and thus affect within‐ecosystem trophic cascades. We hypothesise that similar effects of habitat size might affect cross‐ecosystem trophic cascades. It has been shown that terrestrial predators (e.g. spiders) can capture terrestrial adult insects as they attempt to oviposit in the waters of bromeliads. Such terrestrial predators could therefore alter the trophic structure and functioning of the aquatic food web. If spiders affect an aquatic trophic level that is influenced by bromeliad size, then the strength of the cross‐ecosystem trophic cascade will also depend on bromeliad size. To test this general hypothesis, we manipulated the presence of a funnel‐web spider ( Aglaoctenus castaneus , Lycosidae), which builds a single web over water‐filled bromeliads, in bromeliads differing in size and examined effects on the aquatic invertebrate community and on ecosystem functions (decomposition, detrital nitrogen flux). The effects of spiders were largely independent of bromeliad size. Spiders did initiate changes in the trophic structure of aquatic food webs, reducing the biomass of predators, especially damselflies and dytiscid beetles. Spiders also increased decomposition despite having no effect on detritivore biomass or composition. These results are most parsimoniously explained by (i) a behaviourally mediated trophic cascade, whereby damselfly adults avoid bromeliads with spiders, and aquatic detritivores increase rates of detrital processing in the absence of damselfly larvae, and (ii) stimulation of decomposition through nutrients added from spider faeces and prey carcasses. We believe that this is the first study to show that terrestrial predators can affect decomposition by reducing the flux of keystone aquatic predators with complex life cycles.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207