Ecosystem responses to the eradication of common carp <scp><i>Cyprinus carpio</i></scp> using rotenone from a reservoir in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The control of invasive alien fish populations using piscicides to alleviate impacts on native biota is a controversial conservation strategy because the collateral impacts on non‐target taxa are not well documented. This article documents the responses of water quality, plankton and macroinvertebrate communities to an eradication of the globally invasive common carp Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus 1758, using the piscicide rotenone in a small South African reservoir. Treated and untreated reservoirs were sampled before and at intervals following rotenone treatment. Sampling endpoints included water quality parameters, plankton, macroinvertebrates and fish. These endpoints were selected to gain an understanding of the ecological impacts of the treatment at various biological levels and to document possible recovery following treatment. The study showed that: (i) the common carp were successfully removed; (ii) water clarity improved following the removal of fish; (iii) invertebrate communities, including macroinvertebrates and large zooplankton, recovered within 6 months of treatment; and (iv) that small zooplankton (i.e. Rotifera) dynamics were complex but rotifer abundances had returned to pre‐treatment levels within 6 months of treatment. There was a 56% similarity between the macroinvertebrate assemblages before and 6 months after treatment, showing a substantial turnover in taxa following treatment. The phytoplankton community of the treated reservoir was dominated by blue‐green and green algae prior to the treatment. The blue‐green algal communities were not present 6 months after the treatment, possibly indicating a change in the nutrient status of the reservoir resulting from lower nutrient concentrations in the water column. The phytoplankton community of the reservoir changed from a community typical of eutrophic waters to a community typical of a lower nutrient state. Within each group, there were species changes, but we suggest these are likely to be part of the altered biological interaction dynamics resulting from fish removals, rather than a direct effect of rotenone.
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".