Predicting invasiveness of freshwater fishes imported into North America: regional differences in models and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biological invasions driven by international trade heighten the urgency for development of invasion risk models, as the traits and parameters that consistently predict successful invasion remain unresolved. For four regions of North America that include parts of the United States and Canada (Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins, Lower Colorado River Basin, Great Lakes Region, Mid-Atlantic Region), we construct and compare classification tree models to reveal robust predictors for the establishment and ecological impact stages of freshwater fish invasion. We subsequently apply the models to identify invasive fish species in trade and conduct pathway analyses to determine which trades (aquarium, biological supply, live bait, live food, water garden) and source continents pose the greatest risk to each region. Model results differed by invasion stage and region. Across regions, establishment models shared climate-related predictors including climate match and temperature tolerance. Three of the four impact models contained prior establishment success. The greatest number of species (548) were predicted to establish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin while the fewest (5) were predicted to establish in the Mid-Atlantic. Forty species were predicted to establish in multiple regions, five of which were also predicted to have high impact. The aquarium trade and Asia supplied the most species predicted to establish. Taken together, the results highlight region-specific models, indicating no universal model predicts invasion. Climate-related and prior establishment variables were most useful to risk assessments. The regional models, and identified high-risk pathways and potential invaders, could be applied to prevent future fish invasions in North America.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".