MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A benthic predatory fish does not cause selection on armour traits in three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (Gasterosteiformes: Gasterosteidae)

2011· article· en· W2161310789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew D. C. MacColl, Sonia M. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsSticklebackGasterosteusBiologyPredationSculpinEcologyThree-spined sticklebackCottusOncorhynchusCompetition (biology)TroutZoologyFisheryHabitatFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predation can promote divergence between prey populations and contribute to ecological speciation. In theory, predators can also constrain prey population divergence. In coastal British Columbia, Canada, Gasterosteus aculeatus (three-spined stickleback) species pairs only occur in lakes with a single species of predatory fish: Oncorhynchus clarkii (the cutthroat trout). Similar lakes containing additional predatory fish species (Cottus asper, prickly sculpins; Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout) contain only single species of morphologically intermediate stickleback, suggesting that these predators prevent the coexistence of stickleback species pairs. We conducted a mesocosm experiment to investigate how prickly sculpins might constrain divergence, by quantifying their impact on survival and natural selection on antipredator (armour) traits in F2 stickleback from a cross between ecologically divergent populations. We tested three hypotheses: (1) sculpin predation on sticklebacks reduces survival in a way that could result in their exclusion from certain niches; (2) sculpins compete with stickleback; (3) sculpins respond to prey vulnerabilities in similar ways to cutthroat trout, tending to constrain rather than to enhance divergence. We found that sculpins significantly reduce stickleback survival, that their presence per se does not reduce growth in stickleback, and that predation did not result in selection on any of the armour traits measured, or on gill raker length, which is an important trophic trait. These results tend to refute hypotheses (2) and (3), while supporting hypothesis (1).

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207