Gimme Shelter: differential utilisation and propagule creation of invasive macrophytes by native caddisfly larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In aquatic systems, invasive submerged macrophytes considerably alter the structure and functioning of communities, thus potentially compromising ecosystem services. The prolific spread of invasive macrophytes is often aided by vegetative fragment propagation, yet the contributions of various commonly occurring invertebrates to such fragmentation are often unquantified. In the present study, we examine fragmentary spread of invasive macrophytes by a group of shredder-herbivores, larval caddisflies. Through novel application of the comparative functional response (FR; resource use as a function of density) approach to the native case-building speciesLimnephilus lunatus, we compared utilisation of non-native waterweedsElodea canadensisandE. nuttalliiin mono- and polycultures. Furthermore, we quantified de-cased and cased caddisfly-induced fragment production and length changes among non-nativeE. canadensis,E. nuttallii,Crassula helmsiiandLagarosiphon majorunder two different plant orientations: horizontal (floating) versus vertical (upright) growth forms. Larval caddisflies exhibited Type II (hyperbolic) FRs towards bothElodeaspecies, and utilised each plant at similar rates when plants were provided separately. When plant species were presented in combination horizontally,E. canadensiswas significantly less utilised compared toE. nuttallii, corroborating observations in the field. De-cased larvae produced new plant fragments for all four aquatic macrophytes, whereas cased larvae fragmented plants significantly less.Elodea nuttaliiandC. helmsiiwere fragmented the most overall.Crassula helmsiiwas utilised to the greatest extent when plants were horizontally orientated, andElodeaspecies when vertically orientated. This study identifies and quantifies a mechanism from a novel species group that may contribute to the spread of invasive macrophytes in aquatic systems. Whilst exploititative interactions are thought to impede invasion success, here we demonstrate how resource utilisation by a resident species may exacerbate propagule pressure from an invasive species.
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".