Effect of light intensity and eye development on prey capture by larval striped bass <i>Morone saxatilis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of visual and non‐visual feeding among pelagic striped bass Morone saxatilis larvae adapted to a turbid estuary was determined in the laboratory in clear water. Capture of Artemia salina (density 100 l−1) was significantly affected by the interaction between age of larvae (range: 8–25 days post‐hatch, dph) and light intensity (range: 0–10·6 μmol s−1 m−2 at the water surface). Visual feeding by larvae aged 9–11 dph was highest in dim light (0·086–0·79 μmol s−1 m−2), with fish capturing up to 5 prey larva−1 h−1. As the larvae grew, prey capture in brighter light improved, associated with an increasing proportion of twin cone photoreceptors and improving ability of the retina to light‐ and dark‐adapt. By age >22 dph, mean prey capture was greatest at highest light intensities (0·79 and 10·6 μmol s−1 m−2) exceeding 100 prey larva−1 h−1. Incidence of feeding larvae generally improved as the larvae grew, reaching >80% in all light intensities from 16 dph onwards. The lower threshold for visual feeding, between 0·0084 and 0·03 μmol s−1 m−2, remained constant as the larvae grew, despite an increasing density of rod photoreceptors. Below this threshold, non‐visual feeding was evident at a low rate (<6 prey larva−1 h−1) that was independent of larval age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".