Contrasting patterns of resource utilization between juvenile estuarine predators: the influence of relative prey size and foraging ability on the ontogeny of piscivory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In aquatic systems, ontogenetic patterns of resource utilization strongly influence growth and survival, particularly during early life stages. We compared prey resource use and evaluated potential factors affecting the timing of the shift to piscivorous feeding in two juvenile estuarine fish predators: striped bass ( Morone saxatilis ) and bluefish ( Pomatomus saltatrix ). In New York Bight estuaries, bluefish shift to piscivory earlier in ontogeny and consume larger relative prey fish sizes compared with striped bass. Predator gape allometries are similar and did not determine maximum prey sizes eaten. Experimental results revealed marked differences in foraging abilities between predators, with bluefish realizing much greater foraging efficiency compared with striped bass feeding on identical fish prey. Both predators demonstrated lower feeding efficiency and grew relatively poorly when feeding on invertebrates compared with fish prey. When held together under limited prey conditions, bluefish exploited a greater proportion of available prey at the expense of striped bass. Our findings highlight the importance of the availability of appropriately sized forage fishes to the ontogeny of piscivory and provide evidence that predator–prey size relationships and disparate foraging abilities can generate inter- and intra-specific variation in patterns of resource utilization and predator growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".