Metabolic costs of pursuit and attack in early larval Atlantic cod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic costs of pursuit and attack for early larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) feeding on 2 different prey types, a protozoan (Balanion sp.) and a copepod nauplius (Pseudodiaptomis sp.) were estimated from 5 to 20 d post-hatch.Parameters describing feeding patterns were determined from 3-dimensional observations using 2 orthogonal cameras.Feeding parameters were calculated using a digital image-analysis system for larvae in 3 size classes, and included pursuit duration, distance and speed for both burst and glide components, and attack duration, distance and speed.Metabolic rates were estimated for each component of pursuit and attack from the relationship between specific metabolic rate and swimming speed from previous respirometry studies on cod larvae.Estimated specific metabolic rates were used in a new model to determine specific and total energy expenditures, which incorporated each of the components of pursuit and attack.Values of total energy expenditure were used in a model to determine relative net energy gain during pursuit and attack of a larva on a protozoan and a copepod nauplius in 3 larval size classes.In Size Class 1 (5 to 6 mm total length, TL) first-feeding larval cod were small and poorly developed, had long pursuit and attack times and distances, and slow swimming speeds.In Size Classes 2 (6 to 7 mm TL) and 3 (7 to 8 mm TL) larger larvae were better developed, had shorter pursuit and attack times and distances, and faster swimming speeds.Specific metabolic rates during pursuit of a protozoan increased with increasing larval size, while specific energy expenditure decreased due to shorter pursuit times.Results from net energy gain equations showed that a cod larva gained 3 orders of magnitude more energy from consumption of a nauplius than a protozoan even though its energy expenditure during pursuit of a nauplius was 2 to 3 times that during pursuit of a protozoan.
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".