Grazer-diatom size relationships in an epiphytic community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the animal-food size relationships of an invertebrate grazer community that feeds on the epiphytic diatoms of mosses in a Québec stream. The relationship between invertebrate head width and maximum size of ingested diatoms was significant (r2 = 0.57, n = 82, p <0.00001). This relationship did not differ significantly among widely different taxa of insects, crustaceans, and worms. The comparison of our results with relationships developed in the laboratory for zooplankton and benthos indicated that artificial particles or simplified algal assemblages underestimate the size range of algae ingested by grazers. The examination of the size distribution of the ingested diatoms and of those available in the environment showed that grazers fed preferentially on different diatom size classes in accordance with their head width. Concepts of resource partitioning, optimal foraging, and size efficiency proposed for other habitat types are relevant to stream invertebrate communities. This recognition should facilitate the study of algal-grazer interactions in streams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".