Predator communities associated with brook stickleback (<i>Culaea inconstans</i>) prey: patterns in body size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prey body size is often inversely correlated with largest size of coexisting predators, yet few studies have examined this relationship in the context of entire predator communities. Using field surveys and laboratory trials, this study tested whether a size relationship exists between brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) prey and the largest coexisting predator in the context of nested predator communities at 26 sites across Michigan's upper peninsula. Small predators, limited to consuming small sticklebacks, were widely distributed and equally common in pond, breached pond, and stream habitats. Large predators consumed all stickleback sizes, occurred at fewer sites, and were found more frequently in stream than in pond and breached pond habitats in one of the two survey years. Predator communities were categorized as small-predator and mixed-predator communities. Small-predator communities included small, gape-limited predators only. Sticklebacks apparently reached a size refugia from predation (>42 mm standard length) in this community type. Mixed-predator communities included both small and large predators and had no size refugia for sticklebacks. Although predator distributions were nested in this system, prey size was correlated with the largest predator size at each site. Stickleback length was negatively correlated with maximum predator length and was smaller in mixed-predator than in small-predator communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".