Current distribution, trends, abiotic and biotic preferences of two Elodea species in Bulgaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".