The Aquatic Community Associated with Native and Invasive Macrophytes in Lake Erie Coastal Wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive macrophytes, such as European frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae), may negatively impact wetlands and increase the difficulty to properly manage wetland ecosystems.Thus, the central focus of this study was to determine the abiotic and biotic wetland community characteristics that differentiate these aquatic macrophyte habitats.Monotypic patches of four species of macrophytes; European frogbit, flowering rush, water smartweed, broadleaf arrowhead, plus open water were sampled at Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (Ohio) in July and September 2017 quantifying water chemistry, macrophyte biomass, periphyton growth, macroinvertebrates, fish and waterbirds associated with each habitat.Dissolved oxygen measurements (at sunrise and midday; DO) in European frogbit showed hypoxic conditions consistently < 1.0 mg O2/L, whereas DO in all other habitats was always >2.0 mg O2/L, sometimes reaching >10 mg O2/L.Correlated with low dissolved oxygen levels in European frogbit I found a significant increase in low DO tolerant species such as common carp (Cyprinus carpio), goldfish (Carassius auratus), and central mudminnows (Umbra limi) and fewer low DO intolerant species such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus).A higher abundance of mobile orders of macroinvertebrates, such as gastropods and odonates, were found in sites of European frogbit and no waterbirds were surveyed using European frogbit for habitat or for hunting purposes.This research suggests that European frogbit can be a highly impactful invader in wetlands, justifying the attention of managers and natural resource agencies towards the management and prevention of further spread.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".