Trophic roles determine coral reef fish community size structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between abundance – body size and trophic position – body size can reveal size structuring in food webs and test ecological theory. Although there is considerable evidence of size structuring in temperate aquatic food webs, little is known about the structure of tropical coral reef food webs. Here, we use underwater visual-census data and nitrogen stable isotope analysis to test if coral reef fish communities (i) are size structured and (ii) follow metabolic scaling rules. After examining individuals from over 160 species spanning four orders of magnitude in body size, we show that abundance scaled negatively with body size and, as predicted, individuals sharing energy through predation (carnivorous fishes) scaled more steeply than those individuals sharing a common energy source (herbivorous fishes). Estimated size spectra were, however, shallower than predicted by metabolic theory. Trophic position scaled positively with body size across species and across individuals, providing novel evidence of size structuring in a diverse tropical food web. Size-based approaches hold great promise for integrating the complexities of food webs into simple quantitative measures, thus providing new insights into the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".