Aboveground impacts of a belowground invader: how invasive earthworms alter aboveground arthropod communities in a northern North American forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Declining arthropod communities have recently gained a lot of attention, with climate and land-use change among the most frequently discussed drivers. Here, we focus on a seemingly underrepresented driver of arthropod community decline: biological invasions. For approximately 12 000 years, earthworms have been absent from wide parts of northern North America, but they have been re-introduced with dramatic consequences. Most studies investigating earthworm-invasion impacts focus on the belowground world, resulting in limited knowledge on aboveground-community changes. We present observational data on earthworm, plant and aboveground arthropod communities in 60 plots, distributed across areas with increasing invasion status (low, medium and high) in a Canadian forest. We analysed how earthworm-invasion status and biomass impact aboveground arthropod community abundance, biomass and species richness, and how earthworm impacts cascade across trophic levels. We sampled approximately 13 000 arthropods, dominated by Hemiptera, Diptera, Araneae, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera. Total arthropod abundance, biomass and species richness declined significantly from areas of low to those with high invasion status, with reductions of 61, 27 and 18%, respectively. Structural equation models suggest that earthworms directly and indirectly impact arthropods across trophic levels. We show that earthworm invasion can alter aboveground multi-trophic arthropod communities and suggest that belowground invasions might be underappreciated drivers of aboveground arthropod decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".