Stable isotope‐based trophic structure of pelagic fish and jellyfish across natural and anthropogenic landscape gradients in a fjord estuary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying causes of structural ecosystem shifts often requires understanding trophic structure, an important determinant of energy flow in ecological communities. In coastal pelagic ecosystems worldwide, increasing jellyfish (Cnidaria and Ctenophora) at the expense of small fish has been linked to anthropogenic alteration of basal trophic pathways. However, this hypothesis remains untested in part because baseline description of fish–jellyfish trophic dynamics, and the environmental features that influence them are lacking. Using stable isotopes of carbon (δ 13 C) and nitrogen (δ 15 N), we examined spatiotemporal patterns of fish and jellyfish trophic structure in greater Puget Sound, an urbanizing fjord estuary in the NW United States. We quantified niche positions of constituent species, niche widths and trophic overlap between fish and jellyfish assemblages, and several community‐level trophic diversity metrics (resource diversity, trophic length, and niche widths) of fish and jellyfish combined. We then related assemblage‐ and community‐level measures to landscape gradients of terrestrial–marine connectivity and anthropogenic influence in adjacent catchments. Relative niche positions among species varied considerably and displayed no clear pattern except that fish generally had higher δ 15 N and lower δ 13 C relative to jellyfish, which resulted in low assemblage‐level trophic overlap. Fish assemblages had larger niche widths than jellyfish in most cases and, along with whole community trophic diversity, exhibited contrasting seasonal patterns across oceanographic basins, which was positively correlated to landscape variation in terrestrial connectivity. In contrast, jellyfish niche widths were unrelated to terrestrial connectivity, but weakly negatively correlated to urban land use in adjacent catchments. Our results indicate that fish–jellyfish trophic structure is highly heterogeneous and that disparate processes may underlie the trophic ecology of these taxa; consequently, they may respond divergently to environmental change. In addition, spatiotemporal variation in ecosystem connectivity, in this case through freshwater influence, may influence trophic structure across heterogeneous landscapes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".