Is growth a reliable indicator of habitat quality and essential fish habitat for a juvenile estuarine fish?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common assumption throughout the marine ecological and fisheries literature is that growth is a valid indicator of habitat quality and can be used as a criterion for designation of essential fish habitat (EFH). In this study, the validity of growth as an index of habitat quality was tested by examining how variability in otolith growth was related to abiotic and biotic environmental conditions and could be biased by previous growth history, density dependence, and selective mortality. The study was conducted with juvenile Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) collected in two North Carolina, USA, estuaries during two seasons of two recruitment years. Water temperature, a component of habitat quality, explained nearly 40% of the variability in juvenile otolith growth. There was also evidence that estimates of growth could be biased by density dependence (slower growth at higher conspecific abundance) and by selective mortality (higher mortality of individuals with relatively slower larval and juvenile otolith growth). Studies using growth-based assessment of habitat quality that fail to identify factors underlying growth rate differences among habitats may reach incorrect decisions regarding quality of different habitats and assignment of EFH.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".