Comparative analysis of diet composition and its relation to morphological characteristics in juvenile fish of three lutjanid species in a Mexican Pacific coastal lagoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The main goal of this research was to investigate the differences in diet composition among three species of the genus Lutjanus inhabiting a coastal lagoon as juveniles. The working hypothesis was that these species feed on a common base of food resources and therefore, some niche overlap is present in terms of general diet composition. However, changes in the trophic niche with size and differences in some morphological traits among species explain observed differences in diet. Fish were collected during 42 sampling trips conducted regularly from February 2011 to January 2012 using several types of fishing gear. Total number of analyzed stomachs was 288 for Lutjanus argentiventris from 2.3 to 19.9 cm total length (TL); 178 for Lutjanus colorado ranging from 2.4 to 30.1 cm TL; and 183 for Lutjanus novemfasciatus with 1.2 to 20.0 cm TL. Results indicate that juveniles of all three lutjanid species share a general diet based on decapods and fishes. However, L. novemfasciatus has a more piscivorous habit, which can be explained by a more slender body shape and larger teeth, characteristics, which increase fish catching performance. Larger fish of all three species eat larger prey, which is consistent with the optimum foraging theory.
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 | 0.001 | 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".