Prey size of salmonid fishes in streams, lakes, and oceans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth rate of salmonid fishes is typically fastest in oceans, intermediate in lakes, and slowest in streams. We compiled literature data to test whether differences in the size of prey eaten by salmonids in the three habitats could account for these differences in growth rate (i.e., the prey-size hypothesis). In all three habitats, salmonid fishes exhibited ontogenetic niche shifts from feeding primarily on invertebrates when small to feeding on fishes when large. Contrary to the prey-size hypothesis, invertebrates eaten in streams were larger than those eaten in lakes or oceans, whereas fish eaten in oceans were smaller than those eaten in streams or lakes. Consistent with the prey-size hypothesis, salmonids began eating fish at a smaller size in oceans (8 cm) than in lakes (15 cm) or streams (27 cm). However, the size at which salmonids became predominantly piscivorous (31 cm) did not differ significantly between habitats. We suggest that the difference in growth potential between the three habitats is partly related to the size at which fish first enter the diet.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".