Friends of mine: An invasive freshwater mussel facilitates growth of invasive macrophytes and mediates their competitive interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing rates of invasions in ecosystems worldwide necessitate experiments to determine the role of biotic interactions in the success and impact of multiple alien species. Here, we examined competitive and facilitative interactions among various combinations of three widespread and often co‐occurring invaders: the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha, and the macrophytes Elodea canadensis and Elodea nuttallii. Using a mesocosm‐based, factorial experimental design, we assessed the effect of interspecific competition on macrophyte growth rates in the absence and presence at varying biomass of D. polymorpha. Growth rates (wet g/day) of E. canadensis and E. nuttallii were similar when grown in isolation. When grown together, in the absence of D. polymorpha, E. canadensis growth was not significantly reduced in the presence of E. nuttallii and vice versa. In the presence of D. polymorpha (26.0 ± 1 mm), monocultural growth of E. canadensis was largely unaffected, while E. nuttallii growth was strongly enhanced. Low (2.64 g) and medium (3.96 g) mussel biomass led to negative interspecific effects between E. canadensis and E. nuttallii; at high (5.28 g) mussel biomass, the effect of interspecific competition was negated. Overall, D. polymorpha alleviated competitive interactions between the two invasive macrophytes when all three species co‐occurred, and substantially enhanced growth of E. nuttallii with increasing mussel biomass, thereby suggesting a possible influence on the relative dominance of these macrophytes in the field. Our study demonstrates how facilitations can cause shifts in dominance among closely related invaders. The consequences of such facilitations for the structure and function of communities remain to be explored generally.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".