A field study of brook stickleback morphology: multiple predators and multiple traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This field-based study examined a suite of morphological traits expressed by brook sticklebacks ( Culaea inconstans (Kirtland, 1840)) coexisting with two types of predator communities. “Small-predator” communities included gape-limited predators only; “mixed-predator” communities included both gape-limited and non-gape-limited predators. Across 26 study sites in three drainages, sticklebacks in small-predator communities had longer bodies, longer spines, and deeper midbodies than those in mixed-predator communities. The observed differences were consistent with the hypothesis that stickleback morphology in small-predator communities would be better adapted for avoiding gape-limited predators and that in mixed-predator communities should be better adapted for avoiding large, non-gape-limited predators. Morphological differences were apparent in 1-year-old sticklebacks and likely resulted from predator–prey interactions early in the sticklebacks’ life history. Correlation among morphological traits involved in antipredator defense (i.e., morphological integration) was hypothesized to occur in small-predator communities, characterized by a single gape-limited predation pressure, but not mixed-predator communities where sticklebacks coexisted with multiple predator types in each site. Contrary to expectations, length-at-age, spine length, and body depth were not correlated in either predator community. Numerous variables, not present in controlled laboratory studies, may constrain morphological expression in the field environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".