Zooplankton biomass enhances growth, but not survival, of first-feeding <i>Pomoxis</i> spp. larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used otoliths to estimate growth and survival of white (Pomoxis annularis) and black (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) crappie larvae in five Ohio reservoirs. Because Pomoxis spp. larvae are among the smallest freshwater larvae and competition with gizzard shad larvae (Dorosoma cepedianum) is likely, we hypothesized that first-feeding Pomoxis spp. larvae would be susceptible to slow growth and starvation. We estimated survival by comparing proportional weekly cohort distributions of Pomoxis spp. larvae and juveniles. When distributions differed, a cohort survival index was evaluated against density of appropriately sized zooplankton biomass (crustaceans and rotifers), as well as temperature, turbidity, and density of all limnetic larvae that occurred during hatch week, when exogenous feeding began. Growth of first-feeding larvae (<10 days old) increased with total zooplankton biomass (r2 = 0.64); growth of larvae aged 10–16 days was unrelated to all measured variables. Survival was positively correlated with zooplankton biomass in only one of four reservoirs, and other variables did not correlate as expected. This result casts doubt on whether zooplankton contributes to survival of freshwater larvae.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".