The paradox of inverted biomass pyramids in kelp forest fish communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory predicts that bottom-heavy biomass pyramids or 'stacks' should predominate in real-world communities if trophic-level increases with body size (mean predator-to-prey mass ratio (PPMR) more than 1). However, recent research suggests that inverted biomass pyramids (IBPs) characterize relatively pristine reef fish communities. Here, we estimated the slope of a kelp forest fish community biomass spectrum from underwater visual surveys. The observed biomass spectrum slope is strongly positive, reflecting an IBP. This is incongruous with theory because this steep positive slope would only be expected if trophic position decreased with increasing body size (consumer-to-resource mass ratio, less than 1). We then used δ(15)N signatures of fish muscle tissue to quantify the relationship between trophic position and body size and instead detected strong evidence for the opposite, with PPMR ≈ 1650 (50% credible interval 280-12 000). The natural history of kelp forest reef fishes suggests that this paradox could arise from energetic subsidies in the form of movement of mobile consumers across habitats, and from seasonally pulsed production inputs at small body sizes. There were four to five times more biomass at large body sizes (1-2 kg) than would be expected in a closed steady-state community providing a measure of the magnitude of subsidies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".