Diet, feeding patterns, and prey selection of subyearling Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) and subyearling chinook salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>) in a tributary of Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) occupy a similar habitat in Lake Ontario tributaries, we sought to determine the degree of diet similarity between these species in order to assess the potential for interspecific competition. Atlantic salmon, an historically important but currently extirpated component of the Lake Ontario fish community, are the focus of a bi-national restoration effort. Presently this effort includes the release of hatchery produced juvenile Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario tributaries. These same tributaries support substantial numbers of naturally reproduced juvenile Pacific salmonids including Chinook salmon. Subyearling Atlantic salmon and subyearling Chinook salmon had significantly different diets during each of the three time periods examined. Atlantic salmon fed slightly more from the benthos than from the drift and consumed mainly chirononmids (47.0%) and ephemeropterans (21.1%). The diet of subyearling Chinook salmon was more closely associated with the drift and consisted mainly of chironomids (60.2%) and terrestrial invertebrates (16.0%). Low diet similarity between subyearling Atlantic salmon and subyearling Chinook salmon likely minimizes competitive interactions for food between these species in Lake Ontario tributaries. However, the availability of small prey such as chironomids which comprise over 50% of the diet of each species, soon after emergence, could constitute a short term resource limitation. To our knowledge this is the first study of interspecific diet associations between these two important salmonid species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".