Mysid and fish zooplanktivory in Lake Ontario: quantification of direct and indirect effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mysis relicta and planktivorous fish feed on zooplankton in Lake Ontario and form a trophic triangle that includes intraguild predation by fish on mysids. Thus, fish affect zooplankton both directly and indirectly. To evaluate the importance of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), and mysids as zooplanktivores in Lake Ontario, we measured abundances and distributions, assessed diets, and computed mysid and fish consumption rates based on bioenergetics models. We further estimated indirect effects by comparing clearance rates given observed and potential mysid distributions. Estimated consumption rates varied widely with season and water depth and ranged between 2.6 × 10–3 and 1.3 g·m–2·day–1 for mysids and between 1.4 × 10–3 and 0.5 g·m–2·day–1 for fish, representing a daily removal of zooplankton of up to 10.2%·day–1 and 2.0%·day–1 by mysids and fish, respectively. Mysid planktivory exceeded fish planktivory in May and August, but fish planktivory dominated in October. Estimated mysid planktivory rates were 2- to 90-fold lower than the potential rate if mysids moved to temperatures that maximized their predation rates, suggesting an indirect positive effect of fish on zooplankton.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".