Size-based variation in intertissue comparisons of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic signatures of bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) and tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable isotopes are important tools for understanding the trophic roles of elasmobranchs. However, whether different tissues provide consistent stable isotope values within an individual are largely unknown. To address this, the relationships among carbon and nitrogen isotope values were quantified for blood, muscle, and fin from juvenile bull sharks ( Carcharhinus leucas ) and blood and fin from large tiger sharks ( Galeocerdo cuvier ) collected in two different ecosystems. We also investigated the relationship between shark size and the magnitude of differences in isotopic values between tissues. Isotope values were significantly positively correlated for all paired tissue comparisons, but R2 values were much higher for δ13C than for δ15N. Paired differences between isotopic values of tissues were relatively small but varied significantly with shark total length, suggesting that shark size can be an important factor influencing the magnitude of differences in isotope values of different tissues. For studies of juvenile sharks, care should be taken in using slow turnover tissues like muscle and fin, because they may retain a maternal signature for an extended time. Although correlations were relatively strong, results suggest that correction factors should be generated for the desired study species and may only allow coarse-scale comparisons between studies using different tissue types.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".