Effects of invasive wetland macrophytes on habitat selection and movement by freshwater turtles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Invasive species can significantly impact native wildlife by structurally altering habitats and access to resources. Understanding how native species respond to habitat modification by invasive species can inform effective habitat restoration, avoiding inadvertent harm to species at risk. The invasive graminoids Phragmites australis australis (hereafter Phragmites ) and Typha × glauca are increasingly dominating Nearctic wetlands, often outcompeting native vegetation. Previous research suggests that turtles may avoid invasive Phragmites when moving through their home ranges, but the mechanisms driving avoidance are unclear. We tested two hypotheses that could explain avoidance of invaded habitat: (1) that stands of invasive macrophytes ( Phragmites and Typha x glauca ) impede movement, and (2) that they provide inadequate thermal conditions for turtles. We quantified active-season movements of E. blandingii (n = 14, 1328 relocations) and spotted turtles ( Clemmys guttata ; n = 12, 2295 relocations) in a coastal wetland in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Neither hypothesis was supported by the data. Phragmites and mixed-species Typha stands occurred within the home ranges of mature, active E. blandingii and C. guttata , and were used similarly to most other available habitats, regardless of macrophyte stem density. Turtles using stands of invasive macrophytes did not experience restricted movements or cooler shell temperatures compared to other wetland habitat types. Control of invasive macrophytes can restore habitat heterogeneity and benefit native wetland species. However, such restoration work should be informed by the presence of at-risk turtles, as heavy machinery used for control or removal may injure turtles that use these stands as habitat.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".