Low rate of population establishment of a freshwater invertebrate (<i>Gammarus lacustris</i>) in experimental conservation translocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation translocations may be a useful tool for the restoration of declining freshwater invertebrates, but they are poorly represented in the literature. We conducted a before‐after/control‐impact (BACI) experiment to test the efficacy of conservation translocation for re‐establishing abundant populations of the amphipod Gammarus lacustris, a declining species and wildlife food resource in depressional wetlands in the upper Midwest of the United States of America. Each study site (n = 19) contained at least one treatment wetland receiving translocated G. lacustris from a local donor and one control wetland. We selected study wetlands based on a suite of wetland characteristics and randomly assigned recipient versus control treatment. Gammarus lacustris was detected post‐translocation at only 2 of 22 recipient wetlands (1 of 19 sites). Overall, there was a statistical increase in G. lacustris density in recipient wetlands compared to controls; however, the results were of minimal biological significance due to being driven by a single site with low G. lacustris densities. Accordingly, our results suggest that future conservation translocations of amphipods might be successful if limited to recently restored wetlands or informed by a more complex habitat suitability model to differentiate dispersal limitations from habitat limitations. To develop such a model would involve identifying the fewest, most influential physical and biological factors (e.g. wetland size/structure, fish, aquatic vegetation, and water chemistry) from the numerous inter‐related factors that correlate with the abundance of naturally occurring G. lacustris; candidate wetlands to receive amphipods would be those for which the model predicts abundant G. lacustris but in which they do not presently occur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".