Life‐history traits of introduced Iberian pumpkinseed <i>Lepomis gibbosus </i>relative to native populations. Can differences explain colonization success?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the colonization success of pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus on the Iberian Peninsula, life‐history attributes of pumpkinseed populations from Spanish water bodies were compared to populations in the northern and southern parts of its native range, as well as to those of English water bodies where introduced populations have shown minimal natural range expansion. Discriminate function analysis using five population characteristics [mean age at maturity, mean total length (LT) at maturity, gonado‐somatic index (IG), mean LT at age 2 years as an indication of juvenile growth rate and relative body condition] strongly differentiated populations from the four regional study areas. Spanish populations were early maturing, showed moderate juvenile growth rate and LT at maturity and high IG relative to the other population groups. Spanish populations matured significantly earlier than Canadian and English populations, but not southern U.S.A. populations. Spanish populations, however, had a significantly higher IG than southern U.S.A. populations, suggesting greater reproductive output. Considering these differences in the context of the Winemiller and Rose triangular life‐history strategy model, the pumpkinseed exhibits ‘equilibrium’ life‐history traits that have made other non‐native fishes successful invaders in areas where habitat alteration has resulted in more predictable discharge regimes and water levels. Populations in Iberia, however, appear to have achieved their success by adopting a more ‘opportunistic’ life‐history strategy than their native counterparts. High levels of life‐history plasticity appear to contribute to the success of this species on the Iberian Peninsula.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".