Morphological change and phenotypic plasticity in response to water velocity in three species of Centrarchidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological responses to flowing water have been documented in many fishes, but rarely reported in species with gibbose body types, despite their use of riffles in rivers and streams. In this study, we compared morphological responses to water flow in three gibbose centrarchids: bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus (L., 1758)), and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris (Rafinesque, 1817)). Flow-through plexiglass units, set to either a sustained flow or static conditions, were used to rear juveniles from each species for an 80-day period. All three species developed more streamlined body forms, longer and thinner caudal peduncles, and longer pectoral fins when reared in sustained current. Pumpkinseed exhibited the highest level of phenotypic plasticity in response to water flow, followed closely by bluegill; rock bass was the least plastic species. Rock bass developed longer predorsal and prepectoral lengths, which differ from the morphological changes observed in bluegill and pumpkinseed. The findings not only suggest that some gibbose fishes are capable of exhibiting strong phenotypic responses to water flow, but that many morphological changes are species specific, even within the same taxonomic family. Lastly, all three species developed shorter dorsal fin base lengths when reared under flowing condition, which differs from some previously documented work on fusiform fishes. The results of this study provide a better understanding of how morphology in three closely related species varies in response to environmental conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".