Resource partitioning in a grazer guild feeding on a multilayer diatom mat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gut contents of a guild of invertebrate grazers inhabiting the moss Fontinalis and feeding on epiphytic diatoms in a small Québec stream were analyzed to characterize resource partitioning and food selection. A multivariate approach (RLQ analysis coupled with a revised version of 4th-corner analysis) identified distinct diet patterns among co-occurring grazers. These patterns were mainly explained by differential ingestion of diatoms that differed in their spatial positions within the multilayered periphyton mat. When the size range of available diatoms was large, diet differences were partly explained by diatom size. Comparison of diatoms in grazer guts with diatoms available in the environment indicated selective feeding in different levels of the periphyton mat by grazers. Some grazers (scrapers) fed preferentially on tightly attached diatoms, whereas others (surfers) favored overstory diatoms. Spatial segregation of feeding within the periphyton mat by members of the grazer guild was more evident in a period of potential resource limitation (July) than when food was abundant (May). Our results suggest that all layers/growth forms in the diatom mat are used, resulting in spatial partitioning of the resource when considering the entire grazer community. Therefore, foraging theories already established for other ecosystems are confirmed in the unique context of stream benthos.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".