Growth and Condition of Alewives in Lake Michigan, 1984–2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diets of salmonines in Lake Michigan have been dominated by alewives Alosa pseudoharengus since the 1960s, and information on alewife population dynamics is critical to the management of salmonine fisheries. We monitored alewife size at age and condition (K) at several different locations in Lake Michigan during fall 1984–2001. Alewives were aged by enumerating annuli on otoliths. The results indicated that alewife length at age did not trend upward or downward between 1984 and the late 1990s but decreased from the late 1990s to 2001. Alewife weight at age was relatively constant between 1984 and the mid‐1990s but decreased from the mid‐1990s to 2001. Mean condition for a given alewife age was, on average, 13.7% higher during 1984–1994 than during 1995–2001. This decline in alewife condition was not a density‐dependent response by the alewife population because alewife abundance trended neither upward nor downward during 1984–2001. The decline in alewife condition was possibly due to the lakewide decrease in the abundance of Diporeia spp. during the 1990s. Apparently, the availability of the large‐bodied invertebrates Diporeia and Mysis spp. was an important regulator of adult alewife growth because alewives attained a substantially larger size in Lake Michigan, where these invertebrates were relatively important constituents of the adult alewife diet, than in Lake Ontario, where these invertebrates were not readily eaten by adult alewives. For age‐2 or older females, mean length was 2–9 mm greater than for males. Alewife size at age and condition were slightly higher on the eastern side of Lake Michigan than on the western side.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".