Effects of Size Structure on Trophic Interactions between Age‐0 Smallmouth Bass and Juvenile Anadromous Alewives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Age‐0 alewives Alosa pseudoharengus may compete for food with age‐0 smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu , possibly resulting in declines to some smallmouth bass fisheries in the northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. Such competition could dramatically influence the recruitment of smallmouth bass in this region because they are at their northern limit of distribution and age‐0 smallmouth bass must accumulate sufficient lipid reserves to survive the overwinter period. We examined the temporal patterns of diet and isotopes of carbon and nitrogen for age‐0 alewives and smallmouth bass in a natural lake and a reservoir where alewife escapement is managed. Multiple alewife spawnings occurred in the lake, and small‐bodied alewives were abundant throughout the summer. There was minimal diet overlap, age‐0 alewives became a significant component of the age‐0 smallmouth bass diet, and age‐0 bass grew larger in this system. In the reservoir, escapement of alewife spawners was truncated, and a single‐size age‐0 cohort was observed. Alewives were similar in size to age‐0 smallmouth bass, and by late summer their diets showed some overlap and δ 13 C and δ 15 N levels were similar. Both predation and the potential for competition existed for these species, and their interactions depended on body size relationships. This is an important consideration in alewife management strategies where coexisting fisheries for smallmouth bass are desired.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".