Control of invasive <scp> <i>Phragmites australis</i> </scp> (European common reed) alters macroinvertebrate communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetland restoration often involves invasive‐plant suppression to encourage the recovery of native‐dominated vegetation communities. However, assessment of recovery is usually focused only on vegetation, and the response of other critical wetland biota, such as macroinvertebrates, is seldom assessed. We characterized the aquatic, semi‐aquatic, and terrestrial macroinvertebrate communities in remnant, uninvaded marsh to identify restoration targets and compared this to the communities in Phragmites australis ‐invaded marsh and in the formerly invaded marsh that was treated with the herbicide glyphosate in 2016 to simultaneously evaluate the effects of invasion and invasive‐species suppression. We sampled invertebrates in 2017 and 2018 to track 2 years following herbicide treatment. The invertebrate community composition was similar between P. australis invaded and remnant marsh, suggesting invasion has little effect on macroinvertebrate community structure. There was also high concordance between the aquatic and emerging‐invertebrate communities in the invaded and uninvaded habitats. In contrast, herbicide‐treated sites had a unique community composition, characterized by very high densities of Chironomidae (Diptera) and low taxa richness and evenness. Herbicide‐treated sites also exhibited low concordance between the aquatic and emerging‐invertebrate communities, potentially attributable to the sparse, emergent‐vegetation cover providing limited substrates for emergence. Herbicide‐based, invasive‐species control resulted in considerable changes to the macroinvertebrate community in freshwater marshes for at least 2 years after treatment, which may have consequences for aquatic food webs and species that rely on macroinvertebrates as prey.
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".