Morphological variation in pumpkinseed<i>Lepomis gibbosus</i>introduced into Iberian lakes and reservoirs; adaptations to habitat type and diet?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphology of pumpkinseedLepomis gibbosuspopulations from five Catalonian waterbodies (north‐eastern Spain) that vary in hydromorphometry was examined and compared to a native North American reference site that contained two morphological variants of this species. Populations exhibited significant differences in fin location, body depth and caudal peduncle length, which are known to have functional significance in the hydrodynamics of swimming and hence the foraging mode. Differences were also noted in internal morphological traits functionally related to prey selection. Pumpkinseed populations that fed extensively on zooplankton showed narrow gill raker spacing, and mollusc‐feeding populations had longer and wider pharyngeal bones. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) provided significant separation of all populations on the basis of both external and internal morphology, with the main axis of separation being geographical rather than environmental. The secondary DFA axis, however, did separate populations that fed primarily on zooplankton from those that were primarily benthic invertebrate feeders. In this regard, a population that occupied an Iberian steep‐sided reservoir with an unstable littoral zone showed similar morphological adaptations to the limnetic morphological variant native in North America, supporting previous studies showing that fish morphology is strongly affected by prey type and feeding mode. The results suggest that pumpkinseeds are able to adapt, morphologically, to the types of habitats and prey present in Catalonian waterbodies, and this may partially explain why they are so successful in areas where they have been introduced.
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".