MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396534270 · doi:10.2298/botserb2401027g

Current distribution, trends, abiotic and biotic preferences of two Elodea species in Bulgaria

2024· article· en· W4396534270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gana Gecheva, Tasimir Yakovski, Eli Pavlova-Traykova

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanica Serbica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiotic componentBiotic componentDistribution (mathematics)EcologyBiologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two invasive aquatic macrophyte species from the genus Elodea and their distribution in Bulgaria were studied. The research was based on 653 field surveys from the period 2009-2022. Elodea records constitute to only 6% of the database. Between the two species studied, E. nuttallii exhibited a wider distribution both in rivers and lakes (natural and artificial). Several instances of invaders? dominance were observed, with E. nuttallii showing dominance patterns mainly in lakes, and E. canadensis in rivers. Both species were distributed in aquatic habitats with a wide variation in abiotic characteristics, except for the dominant substrate. E. nuttallii showed a more significant altitudinal range reaching above 1500 m. Such altitudinal variations resulted in diverse ecological habitats in terms of abiotic factors such as temperature and light intensity. The studied aquatic macrophyte communities demonstrated average species richness. Ceratophyllum demersum and Myriophyllum spicatum were the most commonly recorded representatives of the native aquatic flora. Canadian waterweed demonstrated the ability to form dense communities in rivers, while Nuttall?s waterweed retained average values of abundance. A case of natural disappearance within the Elodea species has been documented. The systematised information covering a 13-year period could serve to identify strategic areas for monitoring aquatic IAS and their management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanica SerbicaSame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207