Anchovy foraging: simulating spatial and temporal match/mismatches with zooplankton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prey abundance is only a useful correlate of fish growth rate if it is considered within a match/mismatch hypothesis framework. We developed a model to explore the extent to which the growth rates of juvenile anchovies (Engraulis capensis) are influenced by temporal and spatial match/mismatches with the copepod Calanoides carinatus, a major component of their diet. The distributions of copepods and anchovies are dynamic, so that predation by anchovy may dramatically impact on its prey's spatial distribution. Predation rates by resident fish were commensurate with the average and maximum specific copepod production rates at fish densities of approximately 1 and 3.5 t·km-2, respectively. The spatial arrangement of fish biomass and the temporal overlap between fish and copepod abundances substantially modified both anchovy and copepod growth estimates. Predicted optimal shoal sizes suggest that additional factors such as predator avoidance or the energetics of maintaining school structure may be important. The model emulated observed variability in anchovy growth rates and confirmed the prediction that the availability of high-sustained abundances of food along the West Coast may be a critical "bottleneck" contributing to the strength of recruitment to the South African pelagic purse-seine fishery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".