Invariant Feeding Kinematics of Two Trophically Distinct Nonnative Florida Fishes, Belonesox belizanus and Cichlasoma urophthalmus across Environmental Temperature Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonnative fishes have the ability to adapt to environmental conditions in the invaded ecosystem and utilize resources that may have been absent in their native ecosystem. Belonesox belizanus and Cichlasoma urophthalmus are both nonnative fishes in Florida. Ecomorphological studies conclude that C. urophthalmus is a trophic generalist while B. belizanus is a trophic specialist. The current Florida distribution of these species indicates that C. urophthalmus spreads northerly into the colder regions of Florida at a faster rate than B. belizanus. Is it conceivable that this variation in rate of spread is due to differences in temperature response between these ecomorphologically distinct nonnative fishes? This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the prey-capture kinematics and behavior differ between C. urophthalmus and B. belizanus at a given temperature and across temperatures. Two-Way Repeated Measures Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVAR) revealed that (1) at a given temperature, excursion and timing variables differed between species and (2) the kinematics of prey-capture did not vary across temperatures in both species. This interspecific comparison suggests that both species have the same temperature tolerance and that any difference in their rate of spread across Florida may be driven by factors other than species-specific physiological tolerance to temperature.
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 | 0.000 | 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".