Macroecology of fish community biomass – size structure: effects of invasive species and river regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomass of organisms of different sizes is increasingly being used to explore macroscale variation in food-web and community structure. Here we examine how invasive species and river flow regulation affect native fish biomass and fish community log10 biomass – body mass scaling relationships in Australia’s largest river system, the Murray–Darling. The log10 biomass – body mass scaling exponent (scaling B) of invasive fishes (95% CI: −0.14 to −0.18) was less negative than for native fishes (95% CI: −0.20 to −0.25), meaning that invasive species attained a higher biomass in larger size-classes compared to native species. Flow alteration and invasive common carp (Cyprinus carpio) biomass were correlated with severe reductions in native fish biomass ranging from −47% to −68% (95% CI). Our study provides novel evidence suggesting that invasive and native communities have different biomass – body mass scaling patterns, which likely depend on differences in their trophic ecology and body size distributions. Our results suggest that restoration efforts using environmental flows and common carp control has potential to boost native fish biomass to more than double the current level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".