Premigration Patterns of Growth, Condition, and Resource Use by the Spring-Spawned and Summer-Spawned Cohorts of Juvenile Bluefish in the Hudson River Estuary, New York
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In fish populations with multiple age-classes of similar size and close proximity, interactions between age-classes may be an important source of density-dependent population structuring if there is a disparity in competitive ability, creating a competitive bottleneck. However, intercohort competitive interactions within a single year-class have rarely been investigated and may have implications for recruitment success. Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix produce at least two cohorts (spring- and summer-spawned) of offspring each year, and juveniles of this species are abundant in the lower Hudson River estuary, New York, during summer and early autumn. Our objectives were to evaluate the potential for a competitive bottleneck between these spring and summer cohorts by assessing the cohort-specific growth, condition, and patterns of resource use prior to the autumn migration in 2008 and 2009. The size advantage gained by the spring cohort resulting from earlier hatching dates was maintained throughout both summers. However, the summer juveniles achieved higher lipid content by the end of each summer. When the two cohorts inhabited the estuary at the same time, they exhibited high diet overlap and low spatial overlap. Although Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli predominated the prey base, the two Bluefish cohorts exhibited cohort-specific size-selective feeding, such that the spring cohort preyed upon larger Bay Anchovy than the summer cohort, probably corresponding to different Bay Anchovy year-classes. In this large estuary, the two juvenile Bluefish cohorts exhibited unique strategies with respect to growth and condition, which widened the competitive bottleneck by separating their niches spatially and by foraging on different age-classes of Bay Anchovy.
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".