The Effect of Region, Body Size, and Sample Size on the Weight-Length Relationships of Small-Bodied Fishes Found in Eelgrass Meadows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we evaluated the effects of region, body size, and sample size on the weight-length relationship (WLR) of small-bodied fishes that commonly occur in eelgrass meadows (Zostera marina) along the Pacific coast of Canada. Due to the location of the BC coast within Zoogeographic and oceanographic transition zones, we hypothesized that regional differences in the WLR would be observed. Surprisingly, no effect of region on the slope parameter b was detected for any of the 30 fish species examined. Further, eight species exhibited bimodality in their length-frequency histograms, but we did not detect an effect of body size on b with hierarchical mixed effects models. Moreover, the prediction that species collections with a high proportion of juveniles would be more likely to exhibit positive allometric growth (b > 3.0) is not supported by our data. We also considered the effect of sample size on estimates of the ‘true’ WLR for eight species representing different body shapes, and we found that a minimum of 100 individuals of each species could be pooled from different areas along the BC coast and used to generate precise WLRs for small-bodied fish species. Overall, the results from this study can be used to facilitate further inquiries into the functioning and production dynamics of small-bodied fish species in nursery habitats, such as eelgrass meadows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".