Declining lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) energy density: are there too many salmonid predators in the Great Lakes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used long-term biomonitoring data on lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ) collected from Lakes Erie, Ontario, Huron, and Superior between 1995 and 2004 to investigate latitudinal and temporal trends in body mass and energy density of this top predator in the Great Lakes. Lake trout average body mass and energy density were observed to have negative relationships with latitude that primarily reflected patterns in lake productivities. Temporal declines in energy density occurred for >80% of all lake trout age classes collected from each of the four lakes between 1995 and 2004. von Bertalanffy (VBL) growth models describing the relationships between fish energy density and age demonstrated decreased growth of lake trout energy density during 2000–2004 relative to 1995–1999. VBL growth coefficients (k) and the slopes describing the rates of change in lake trout energy density were negatively correlated with the total number of lake trout and salmonid individuals released into these lakes during this study. We hypothesize that the temporal declines in lake trout body mass and energy density are a manifestation of a bioenergetic bottleneck for this species due to their inability to efficiently compete with non-native salmonids for depleted prey populations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".