Examining inducible defenses to novel predators across native and introduced populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An invading species should be more likely to establish if it can successfully identify and defend against predators in the recipient range, such as through the expression of inducible defenses. Inducible defenses are behavioral or physiological changes induced by the presence of the predator or related cues that reduce an organism’s susceptibility to predation. The few studies that have examined inducible defenses in the context of biological invasions used introduced species that invaded many generations before rather than newly introduced prey naïve to predator cues. Therefore, we examined if inducible defenses may have benefited the purple varnish clam Nuttallia obscurata during the early stage of its introduction from Asia to the Northeast Pacific. Once we established that non-native N. obscurata increased burrowing depth in the presence of invaded-range predators, in particular Dungeness crabs Metacarcinus magister, we compared burrowing depth in aquaria of tethered N. obscurata collected from 2 introduced populations, viz. Oregon, USA, and British Columbia, Canada, versus those collected from a native population in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. The physical presence of M. magister caused N. obscurata from the USA and Canada to increase their burrowing depth, while specimens from Japan did not. Whereas these findings suggest that inducible defenses may contribute to the continued success of N. obscurata in the Northeast Pacific, they do not support the idea that N. obscurata expressed inducible defenses in the early stage of invasion. Nonetheless, this mechanism may be important for the initial establishment of some species and population growth and expansion for other species once they learn the cues of local predators.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".