MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939201034 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2701

Long‐term population dynamics of dreissenid mussels (<i>Dreissena polymorpha</i> and <i>D. rostriformis</i>): a cross‐system analysis

2019· article· en· W2939201034 on OpenAlexaff
David L. Strayer, Б. В. Адамович, Rita Adrian, David C. Aldridge, Csilla Balogh, Lyubov E. Burlakova, Hannah B. Fried‐Petersen, László Tóth, Amy L. Hetherington, Thomas S. Jones, Alexander Y. Karatayev, Jacqueline B. Madill, Oleg A. Makarevich, J. Ellen Marsden, André L. Martel, Dan Minchin, Thomas F. Nalepa, Ruurd Noordhuis, Timothy J. Robinson, Lars G. Rudstam, Astrid N. Schwalb, David R. Smith, Alan D. Steinman, Jonathan M. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Geological SurveyBelarusian Republican Foundation for Fundamental ResearchMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationU.S. ArmyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDreissenaZebra musselPopulationEcologyBiologyInvasive speciesRange (aeronautics)Population declineBivalviaFisheryMusselMolluscaHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dreissenid mussels (including the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha and the quagga mussel D. rostriformis ) are among the world's most notorious invasive species, with large and widespread ecological and economic effects. However, their long‐term population dynamics are poorly known, even though these dynamics are critical to determining impacts and effective management. We gathered and analyzed 67 long‐term (>10 yr) data sets on dreissenid populations from lakes and rivers across Europe and North America. We addressed five questions: (1) How do Dreissena populations change through time? (2) Specifically, do Dreissena populations decline substantially after an initial outbreak phase? (3) Do different measures of population performance (biomass or density of settled animals, veliger density, recruitment of young) follow the same patterns through time? (4) How do the numbers or biomass of zebra mussels or of both species combined change after the quagga mussel arrives? (5) How does body size change over time? We also considered whether current data on long‐term dynamics of Dreissena populations are adequate for science and management. Individual Dreissena populations showed a wide range of temporal dynamics, but we could detect only two general patterns that applied across many populations: (1) Populations of both species increased rapidly in the first 1–2 yr after appearance, and (2) quagga mussels appeared later than zebra mussels and usually quickly caused large declines in zebra mussel populations. We found little evidence that combined Dreissena populations declined over the long term. Different measures of population performance were not congruent; the temporal dynamics of one life stage or population attribute cannot generally be accurately inferred from the dynamics of another. We found no consistent patterns in the long‐term dynamics of body size. The long‐term dynamics of Dreissena populations probably are driven by the ecological characteristics (e.g., predation, nutrient inputs, water temperature) and their temporal changes at individual sites rather than following a generalized time course that applies across many sites. Existing long‐term data sets on dreissenid populations, although clearly valuable, are inadequate to meet research and management needs. Data sets could be improved by standardizing sampling designs and methods, routinely collecting more variables, and increasing support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations71
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207