Why are dwarf fish so small? An energetic analysis of polymorphism in lake whitefish (<i>Coregonus clupeaformis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sympatric populations of dwarf lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) (DLW) and normal lake whitefish (NLW) commonly occur in north temperate and subarctic lakes. DLW have a much lower growth, mature earlier, and have a shorter life span than NLW. Furthermore, they are usually not found when cisco (Coregonus artedi) are present, possibly due to competitive exclusion. In this study, we compared the energy budget of DLW, NLW, and cisco using food consumption rates estimated with mass balance models of chemical tracers (i.e., mercury and radiocesium). These chemicals are globally distributed and can be readily detected in fish and their prey. Our analysis showed that the energy budget of DLW and cisco was similar. DLW and cisco consumed on average 4050% more food than NLW. The conversion efficiency of DLW and cisco was two to three times lower than that of NLW. These results suggest that DLW and cisco allocated a larger fraction of their energy budget to metabolism than NLW. Our analysis also suggests that the earlier maturation and shorter life span of DLW and cisco may be due to their higher metabolic rates.
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 | 0.001 | 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".