Bathythermal Habitat Use by Strains of Great Lakes‐ and Finger Lakes‐Origin Lake Trout in Lake Huron after a Change in Prey Fish Abundance and Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A study conducted in Lake Huron during October 1998–June 2001 found that strains of Great Lakes‐origin (GLO) lake trout Salvelinus namaycush occupied significantly higher temperatures than did Finger Lakes‐origin (FLO; New York) lake trout based on data from archival (or data storage) telemetry tags that recorded only temperature. During 2002 and 2003, we implanted archival tags that recorded depth as well as temperature in GLO and FLO lake trout in Lake Huron. Data subsequently recorded by those tags spanned 2002–2005. Based on those data, we examined whether temperatures and depths occupied by GLO and FLO lake trout differed during 2002–2005. Temperatures occupied during those years were also compared with occupied temperatures reported for 1998–2001, before a substantial decline in prey fish biomass. Temperatures occupied by GLO lake trout were again significantly higher than those occupied by FLO lake trout. This result supports the conclusion of the previous study. The GLO lake trout also occupied significantly shallower depths than FLO lake trout. In 2002–2005, both GLO and FLO lake trout occupied significantly lower temperatures than they did in 1998–2001. Aside from the sharp decline in prey fish biomass between study periods, the formerly abundant pelagic alewife Alosa pseudoharengus virtually disappeared and the demersal round goby Neogobius melanostomus invaded the lake and became locally abundant. The lower temperatures occupied by lake trout in Lake Huron during 2002–2005 may be attributable to changes in the composition of the prey fish community, food scarcity (i.e., a retreat to cooler water could increase conversion efficiency), or both.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".