Species’ ecological functionality alters the outcome of fish stocking success predicted by a food-web model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish stocking is used worldwide in conservation and management, but its effects on food-web dynamics and ecosystem stability are poorly known. To better understand these effects and predict the outcomes of stocking, we used an empirically validated network model of a well-studied lake ecosystem. We simulate two stocking scenarios with two native fish species valuable for fishing. In the first scenario, we stock planktivorous fish (whitefish) larvae in the ecosystem. This leads to a 1% increase in adult whitefish biomasses and decreases the biomasses of the top predator (perch). In the second scenario, we also stock perch larvae in the ecosystem. This decreases the planktivorous whitefish and the oldest top predator age class biomasses, and destabilizes the ecosystem. Our results demonstrate that the effects of stocking depend on the species' position in the food web and thus cannot be assessed without considering interacting species. We further show that stocking can lead to undesired outcomes from both management and conservation perspectives. The gains of stocking can remain minor and have adverse effects on the entire ecosystem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".