MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087270588 · doi:10.3354/meps07716

Feeding ecology and predation impact of the recently established amphipod, Themisto libellula, in the St. Lawrence marine system, Canada

2008· article· en· W2087270588 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Marion, Michael J. Harvey, Denis Chabot, J. Brèthes

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Ecology Progress Series · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrophic levelEcologyPredationGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Themisto libellula was virtually absent from the St. Lawrence marine system (SLMS) before 1990. Since then, it has become an abundant, full-time resident of this system. Hyperiid amphipods of the genus Themisto are principally carnivorous and represent an essential link in the trophic pathway from secondary production to higher trophic levels. Sampling of T. libellula was carried out in the lower St. Lawrence Estuary (LSLE) and the northwest Gulf of St. Lawrence (NWGSL) in the fall of 1998, 2003 and 2004 to study the feeding dynamics and predation impact of this species on mesozooplankton and macrozooplankton communities. Our results showed that T. libellula was an opportunistic predator with a circadian feeding cycle; activity was higher during the second part of the night and the sunrise period. Stomach content analyses showed that these amphipods consumed chiefly copepods, in particular, the copepodite stages CIV and CV of Calanus finmarchicus. Euphausiids, chaetognaths, amphipods and mysids constituted other important prey. Digestion time was estimated at 13 h. The daily ingestion rate of T. libellula was estimated using 2 approaches: (1) stomach fullness index and (2) mean number of prey removed per unit of time and converted to prey biomass using the stage-species dry masses of each prey item. We found that the daily ingestion rate of T. libellula ranged from 6.32 to 16.82% of body dry mass per day in both study areas (LSLE and NWGSL). Concerning predation impact, T. libellula consumed between 0.14 and 1.79% of the combined mesozooplankton and macrozooplankton standing stock per day and between 0.43 and 2.48% of the C. finmarchicus standing stock. Themisto libellula may thus exert a significant control on the mesozooplankton and macrozooplankton communities in the SLMS through direct predation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Ecology Progress SeriesSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207