Could the planktonic stages of polar cod and Pacific sand lance compete for food in the warming Beaufort Sea?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The boreal Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) was recently detected in southeastern Beaufort Sea (Canadian Arctic), numbering as the second most abundant ichthyoplankton species after the polar cod (Boreogadus saida) in 2011. We contrast the hatching periods, growth, prey selectivity, and feeding success of the planktonic stages of the two species. Polar cod hatched from January to mid-July and sand lance from mid-July to early September, precluding any competition among the larval stages. By weight, sand lance larvae grew 3.7 times faster than polar cod larvae. The co-occurring juveniles of both species fed primarily on copepods and to a lesser extent on bivalve larvae, shifting to larger prey with growth. The feeding success of both species appeared limited by the availability of their preferred prey. A significant diet overlap in juveniles >25 mm suggested potential competition for Pseudocalanus spp., Calanus spp., and bivalve larvae. However, sand lance strongly selected for nauplii while the more diversified diet of polar cod comprised mainly the copepodites of these species. Interspecific competition for food is unlikely at this time but is predicted to amplify with a climate-related reduction in the size of zooplankton prey and an increase in the abundance of sand lance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".