Can tropical macrophytes establish in the lower Laurentian Great Lakes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many macrophyte species sold in stores across Canada are perceived as unlikely to invade owing to climate mismatches. This does not account for climate change, which may make the Great Lakes more suitable to invaders. This study aimed to assess the invasion potential of two macrophytes ( Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes ) that were recently discovered in the Great Lakes, and determine the mechanisms responsible for their persistence. I surveyed the Canadian shoreline of the Great Lakes to determine their current range, and tested three hypotheses that may account for their continued presence. Surveys conducted in 2010, 2011 and 2012 demonstrated that the species are recurring in some tributaries. I deployed enclosures to assess winter survival of experimental plants and results indicate that neither species can survive. However, water hyacinth produces seeds in the Great Lakes, and experiments indicate a germination rate of up to 67% under optimal conditions. Therefore, it is unlikely that water lettuce and water hyacinth are currently established in the area, though it may become an issue in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".