MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170510145 · doi:10.1139/f05-183

Body size, not other morphological traits, characterizes cascading effects in fish assemblage composition following commercial netting

2005· article· en· W2170510145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Craig A. Layman, R. Brian Langerhans, Kirk O. Winemiller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de los LlanosU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsPredationNettingOrdinationEcologyBiologyAssemblage (archaeology)PredatorFloodplainFood web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traits used to group species and generalize predator–prey interactions can aid in constructing models to assess human impacts on food webs, especially in complex, species-rich systems. Commercial netting has reduced populations of large-bodied piscivores in some lagoons of a Venezuelan floodplain river, and cascading effects result in distinct prey fish communities in netted and unnetted lagoons. In 2002 and 2003, we sampled assemblages of prey fishes in netted and unnetted lagoons and tested whether fish size and (or) other morphological characteristics were associated with differences in assemblage composition. In both years, prey fish assemblages in netted lagoons were dominated numerically by larger species. We used geometric morphometric methods to test for a relationship between species morphological characteristics and found that neither overall morphological ordination nor specific morphological traits could be used to distinguish among assemblages. Thus, size was the only variable that was useful in explaining differences in assemblage composition. Even in this species-rich river with a complex food web, size-structured predator–prey interactions apparently influence community-level patterns and can be used to characterize human impacts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207