High niche overlap between two successfully coexisting pairs of Lake Malawi cichlid fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species in high-diversity assemblages appear to coexist in similar ecological niches. It has been proposed that interspecific resource partitioning in these assemblages may only occur during periods of resource scarcity. We tested this hypothesis by measuring resource abundance, dietary overlap, foraging rate, and territoriality in a Lake Malawi rock cichlid assemblage over a period of 1 year. Our study examined two pairs of morphologically similar species, with each pair comprising one native species and one invader species that has successfully established after being translocated from another region of the lake. All four species changed their diet and foraging rate in response to seasonal variation in resource abundance. However, dietary overlap within both species pairs remained high in all seasons and was not influenced by resource availability. Similarly, territoriality did not decline during periods of low resource availability, suggesting no decrease in the strength of interspecific competition. These data suggest that these species pairs are successfully coexisting despite substantial niche overlap during resource scarcity. Thus, the coexistence of species within this radiation may not depend on the evolution of divergent resource use patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".