MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130279981 · doi:10.1139/f08-125

Long-term variation in isotopic baselines and implications for estimating consumer trophic niches

2008· article· en· W2130279981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher T. Solomon, Stephen R. Carpenter, James A. Rusak, M. Jake Vander Zanden

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFetzer Institute
KeywordsTrophic levelFood webBenthic zonePelagic zoneEnvironmental scienceEcological nicheEcologyNicheIsotope analysisStable isotope ratioBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios are increasingly used to study long-term food web change. Temporal variation at the base of the food web may impact the accuracy of trophic niche estimates, but data describing interannual baseline variation are limited. We quantified baseline variation over a 23-year period in a north-temperate lake and used a simulation model to examine how this variation might affect consumer trophic niche estimates. Interannual variation in C and N stable isotope ratios was significant for both benthic and pelagic primary consumer baselines. Long-term linear trends and shorter-term autoregressive patterns were apparent in the data. There were no correlations among benthic and pelagic C and N baselines. Simulations demonstrated that error in estimated fish trophic niches, but not bias, increased substantially when sampling of baselines was incomplete. Accurate trophic niche estimates depended more on accurate estimation of baseline time series than on accurate estimation of growth and turnover rates. These results highlight the importance of previous and continued efforts to constrain bias and error in long-term stable isotope food web studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207