The potential role of biotic interactions in stream restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biotic interactions perform an important role in structuring freshwater communities; however, these are rarely considered during stream restoration. Degraded stream communities are often dominated by organisms with shell or case protections, such as snails, which are less vulnerable to predation than desired organisms, such as mayflies. Unprotected organisms may be preferentially eaten, limiting biotic restoration success after the physical restoration of degraded stream communities. We investigated whether restoration success depended on differences in vulnerability to predation by testing whether consumption‐based interaction strengths (IS) between vulnerable colonizing Deleatidium spp. mayflies and upland bullies (Gobiomorphus breviceps) changed with different densities of protected Potamopyrgus antipodarum snails and whether snails affected Deleatidium behavior. Deleatidium and fish IS were stronger with fewer Deleatidium present, a destabilizing effect on vulnerable prey populations, and less total prey biomass was consumed with higher densities of protected relative to vulnerable prey, potentially having long‐term negative effects on predators. Furthermore, mayflies appeared less on surfaces with high snail densities, potentially due to altered resource use. The combination of these biotic interactions could form a barrier to successful biotic restoration by preventing colonization of desired vulnerable prey, through priority effects within the established community. Therefore, considering biotic interactions in stream restoration is important to overcome biotic restoration barriers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".