MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2062824089 · doi:10.1139/f07-172

Water velocity influences prey detection and capture by drift-feeding juvenile coho salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch) </i>and steelhead (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus</i>)

2008· article· en· W2062824089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Piccolo, Nicholas F. Hughes, Mason D. Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest Research StationU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsOncorhynchusPredationRainbow troutJuvenileFisheryEnvironmental sciencePrey detectionBiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effects of water velocity on prey detection and capture by drift-feeding juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (sea-run rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) in laboratory experiments. We used repeated-measures analysis of variance to test the effects of velocity, species, and the velocity × species interaction on prey capture probability, prey detection distance, and swimming speeds during prey capture. We used 3D video analysis to assess the spatial and temporal characteristics of prey detection and capture. Coho and steelhead showed significant, velocity-dependent decreases in capture probability (~65% to 10%, with an increase of velocity from 0.29 to 0.61 m·s -1 ) and prey detection distance, with no effect of species and no velocity × species interaction. Neither velocity nor species affected prey interception speed; fish intercepted prey at their predicted maximum sustainable swimming speed (V max ) at all velocities. Speed of return to the focal point increased significantly with increasing velocity, with no effect of species. At faster velocities, return speeds were faster than V max , indicating potential increases in energetic cost because of anaerobic swimming. The 3D analysis suggests that the reduction in capture probability was due to both reduced prey detection distance and a uniform decline in detection probability within the prey capture area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→