MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151138894 · doi:10.1111/eff.12036

Implications of hypoxia tolerance for wetland refugia use in Lake Nabugabo, Uganda

2013· article· en· W2151138894 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea J. Reid, Maxwell J. Farrell, Max Luke, Lauren J. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Of Freshwater Fish · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science CouncilMcGill University
KeywordsBiologyLatesEcologyPredationSwampHypoxia (environmental)CichlidWetlandIntraspecific competitionOreochromisHabitatFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aquatic hypoxia can affect predator‐prey interactions by altering the success rate of the predator and/or the vulnerability of prey. For example, in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa, native prey exploit hypoxic wetlands as refugia from predation by introduced Nile perch (Lates niloticus). Here, it is predicted that species exploitation of wetlands depends on their hypoxia tolerance relative to the heterogeneity of wetland hypoxia. In this study, we compared the hypoxia tolerance of four fish taxa that differ in their use of hypoxic wetlands in Lake Nabugabo, Uganda: the cichlid Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor victoriae that inhabits the dense swamp interior; and three taxa that inhabit wetland ecotones including Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), L. niloticus and juvenile endemic haplochromine cichlids. We characterised hypoxia tolerance by exposing fish to progressive hypoxia and quantifying variation in aquatic surface respiration (ASR). The effect of body size on tolerance was explored in L. niloticus by quantifying ASR behaviour across a range of size classes. ASR behaviour was also compared between O. niloticus groups from wetland versus open‐water habitats to detect habitat‐associated intraspecific variation. The most tolerant taxon was the swamp specialist P. multicolor, indicated by its low ASR thresholds and small percentage of fish using ASR during the final sample interval. The other three taxa did not differ in ASR behaviour, and no differences were detected between O. niloticus groups. Body size effects were present for L. niloticus suggesting a lower tolerance to hypoxia in larger‐bodied individuals, thus limiting their ability to penetrate wetlands.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology Of Freshwater FishSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207