MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131559212 · doi:10.1139/f10-158

Rates and components of carbon turnover in fish muscle: insights from bioenergetics models and a whole-lake <sup>13</sup>C addition

2011· article· en· W2131559212 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian C. Weidel, Stephen R. Carpenter, James F. Kitchell, M. Jake Vander Zanden

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Notre Dame
KeywordsPerchMicropterusBioenergeticsBass (fish)Lepomis macrochirusBiologyCentrarchidaeδ13CStable isotope ratioEcologyAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable isotopes are widely employed to describe energy flow in aquatic communities, though interpretation of results can be confounded by the fact that organisms integrate over vastly different time scales. We used results from a 56-day whole-lake 13 C addition and a bioenergetic modeling approach to estimate dorsal muscle carbon turnover rates in a natural setting for three sizes of bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ), largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), and yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ). Generally, dynamic δ 13 C models with a metabolic tissue replacement term were better supported than models predicting isotopic change from growth alone, except when relative growth rates were highest (age 0 bluegill). Across species and size classes, the percentage of carbon change due to tissue replacement was variable (2%–80%) and independent of fish size. The half-life of δ 13 C in age 0 fishes was similar and ranged from 8 to 18 days. In contrast, adult tissue half-lives were much longer (116–173 days). Based on these and previously published estimates, fish mass (g) was a strong predictor of fish carbon turnover rates, λ: log(λ) = –3.65 – 0.20 log(mass), r 2 = 0.71.

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 score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations145
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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