Freshwater macroinvertebrate communities on exotic and native plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic plants play an important role in the survival and proliferation of invertebrates in freshwater ecosystems. Exotic plants are now common in North American lakes and rivers, where they may displace native plants, thereby potentially altering epiphytic invertebrate communities. Differences in aquatic invertebrate communities on native and exotic plants are examined here through (1) a meta-analysis of published data, and (2) two field surveys in northeastern North America that compared invertebrates on the exotic Myriophyllum spicatum and Potamogeton crispus to those on their native congeners. The meta-analysis revealed that exotic plants generally support lower invertebrate abundance than do natives, while invertebrate taxa richness tends to be similar on exotic and native plants. The field surveys demonstrated that M. spicatum and P. crispus support significantly different invertebrate densities and lower taxa richness than their structurally similar native congeners. These results suggest that the replacement of native plants by exotics---even those with similar morphology---may cause concomitant changes to aquatic ecosystems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".