MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977583424 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3308934

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PREDATION BY COMMON EIDERS AND ABIOTIC DISTURBANCE IN AN INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY

2016· other· en· W6977583424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntertidal zonePredationWhelkAbiotic componentInvertebrateAbundance (ecology)Competition (biology)PredatorHabitatSpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predation and disturbance have been well studied in intertidal communities. However, the impact of vertebrate predators, particularly waterfowl, has been only infrequently determined in long-term intertidal studies. Using predator exclusion cages and simulated abiotic disturbance, I studied the direct and indirect effects of predation by Common Eiders (<i>Somateria mollissima</i>) on an intertidal mussel bed community in Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick, Canada. Eiders fed heavily on blue mussels (<i>Mytilus edulis</i>), the dominant invertebrate present, reducing their abundance in “+duck” (exposed to predation) relative to “−duck” (exclosure) plots by nearly 50% within eight months of initiation of the experiment. Based on counts and estimated consumption rates, eiders appeared to be responsible for most predation observed in this system. Although ducks fed heavily on the dominant intertidal invertebrate, they had little effect on species diversity or richness in the community. However, relative abundance of the most common invertebrates did vary. In particular, exclusion of eiders led to an increase in abundance of dogwhelks (<i>Nucella lapillus</i>) one year into the experiment. Whelks, in turn, fed heavily on mussels under cages and obscured the longer-term effect of ducks in the system. This indirect effect appears to be an example of asymmetric exploitation competition, with ducks influencing the food supply of whelks, but whelks having little effect on ducks. When ducks were excluded, whelks were released from this competition and acted as compensating predators. No other indirect effects developed following duck exclusion, presumably due to the increased whelk effect. Disturbance, in contrast, did lead to an increase in species diversity, which later returned to predisturbance levels as the community recovered. Predation delayed the recovery of disturbed sites, because ducks began feeding in these plots before mussel abundance had completely rebounded. Disturbance, while initially deterring predation somewhat, ultimately allowed the effects of predators to persist longer. This interaction of predation and disturbance resulted from compensatory growth of mussels under exclosures in disturbed sites. Mussels protected from eider predation grew quickly after disturbance and rapidly became larger than the preferred prey for whelks. As a consequence, whelks did not feed as heavily on mussels in disturbed sites as in undisturbed sites, where more mussels were of the preferred size, and the observed effect of ducks on mussel biomass persisted. This experiment demonstrates that eiders were significant, and, probably, keystone predators in this system. Eiders directly reduced abundance of mussels, thereby indirectly increasing whelk density in plots where ducks were excluded. Compensatory predation by whelks following duck exclusion blocked other potential indirect effects, thus preventing eiders from having more widespread effects in the system. Such compensatory predation may act to stabilize communities and evidently can occur in relatively simple systems as well as the more species-rich communities with which it is usually associated.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207