Multiple generalist morphs of Lake Trout: Avoiding constraints on the evolution of intraspecific divergence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A generalist strategy, as an adaptation to environmental heterogeneity, is common in Arctic freshwater systems, often accompanied, however, by intraspecific divergence that promotes specialization in niche use. To better understand how resources may be partitioned in a northern system that supports intraspecific diversity of Lake Trout, trophic niches were compared among four shallow‐water morphotypes in Great Bear Lake (N65°56′ 39″, W120°50′ 59″). Bayesian mixing model analyses of stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen were conducted on adult Lake Trout. Major niche overlap in resource use among four Lake Trout morphotypes was found within littoral and pelagic zones, which raises the question of how such polymorphism can be sustained among opportunistic generalist morphotypes. Covariances of our morphological datasets were tested against δ13C and δ15N values. Patterns among morphotypes were mainly observed for δ15N. This link between ecological and morphological differentiation suggested that selection pressure(s) operate at the trophic level (δ15N), independent of habitat, rather than along the habitat‐foraging opportunity axis (δ13C). The spatial and temporal variability of resources in Arctic lakes, such as Great Bear Lake, may have favored the presence of multiple generalists showing different degrees of omnivory along a weak benthic–pelagic gradient. Morphs 1–3 had more generalist feeding habits using both benthic and pelagic habitats than Morph 4, which was a top‐predator specialist in the pelagic habitat. Evidence for frequent cannibalism in Great Bear Lake was found across all four morphotypes and may also contribute to polymorphism. We suggest that the multiple generalist morphs described here from Great Bear Lake are a unique expression of diversity due to the presumed constraints on the evolution of generalists and contrast with the development of multiple specialists, the standard response to intraspecific divergence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".