Fish and harlequin ducks compete on breeding streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated interactions among harlequin ducks ( Histrionicus histrionicus (L., 1758)), fish, and their shared aquatic insect prey. We measured flow variability, benthic aquatic prey abundance, fish presence, and breeding density of harlequins on eight rivers in the Southern Coast Mountain Range in British Columbia, Canada, in 2003 and 2004. Rivers with lower flow variability had higher abundance of aquatic insects. Densities of harlequins and fish presence on the rivers were both significantly and positively related to insect abundance, but path analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between them. We interpret this as an indirect interaction between harlequins and fish mediated by anti-predator behaviour of insects in the presence of fish, which reduces insect availability, rather than as a reduction in the abundance of aquatic insects through consumption by fishes. We hypothesize that the ongoing and widespread introduction of fish into historically fishless waters throughout North America may have contributed to the current low productivity and recruitment measured in populations of harlequins by reducing quality of breeding habitat.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".