MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2153344033 · doi:10.1139/f08-120

Is ecological segregation in a pair of sympatric coregonines supported by divergent feeding efficiencies?

2008· article· en· W2153344033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Ohlberger, Thomas Mehner, Georg Staaks, Franz Hölker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCisco Systems
KeywordsSympatric speciationBiologyCoregonusPlanktivorePredationSympatryPiscivoreForagingEcologyPelagic zoneAllopatric speciationCompetition (biology)PredatorFisheryPopulationPhytoplanktonFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some of the sympatric species pairs commonly described in temperate freshwater fishes provide evidence for ecological specialization driven by competition for food resources as a potential prerequisite of subsequent sympatric speciation. In the postglacial Lake Stechlin (Germany), two sympatric coregonines coexist, common vendace ( Coregonus albula ) and endemic dwarf-sized Fontane cisco ( Coregonus fontanae ). The species segregate vertically along the light intensity and prey density gradients of their pelagic environment. Accordingly, we hypothesized that the species might show differences in their foraging efficiency associated with these environmental gradients. We investigated the feeding behaviour by measuring the functional response of both species to Daphnia magna at various prey densities (0.25–8 individuals·L–1) and light intensities (0.005–5 lx) at a deep blue light spectrum to simulate their natural habitat. Decreasing light intensity and prey density significantly depressed consumption rates in both species. Overall, we observed only weak differences in feeding behaviour, which indicates that the species are functionally similar, coexisting planktivores.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→