Effects of habitat and internal prey subsidies on juvenile coho salmon growth: implications for stream productive capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract – To evaluate the effects of habitat, foraging strategy (drift vs. limnetic feeding) and internal prey subsidies (downstream transport of invertebrate drift between habitats) on fish production, we measured the growth of juvenile coho salmon confined to enclosures in flowing (pond inlets and outlets) or standing water (centre of pond) habitats in a constructed river side‐channel. The effects of habitat and foraging strategy on fish growth were mediated primarily through habitat effects on prey abundance. Invertebrate drift biomass was nearly an order of magnitude higher at pond inlets relative to outlets. Drift‐feeding coho in inlet enclosures grew 50% faster than drift‐feeding coho at pond outlets or limnetic feeding coho in the centre of ponds, suggesting that elevated drift at inlets was sufficient to account for higher inlet growth rates. Forty per cent of prey biomass in stomachs was terrestrial in origin. These results indicate that, in addition to dependence on external terrestrial subsidies, streams with alternating slow and fast water (i.e., pool‐riffle) sequences are also characterised by internal prey subsidies based on transport of drifting invertebrates from refuge habitats (high velocity riffles) to habitats more suitable for drift‐feeding predators (e.g., pools), which may result in higher maximum fish growth in systems where internal subsidises are large. Restoration of small streams to maximise productive capacity for pool‐rearing salmonids will require a better understanding of the length and interspersion of habitats that maximises both internal prey subsidies and available rearing habitat for juvenile salmon.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".