MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914667213 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0299

Utilizing DNA metabarcoding to characterize the diet of marine-phase Arctic lamprey (<i>Lethenteron camtschaticum</i>) in the eastern Bering Sea

2019· article· en· W2914667213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katie A. Drew, Trent M. Sutton, James M. Murphy, J. Andrés López

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsLampreyCapelinBiologyClupeaArcticPredationEcologyFisheryZoologyHerringFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the marine feeding ecology of Arctic lamprey (Lethenteron camtschaticum) in the eastern Bering Sea, visual observations and DNA metabarcoding of gut contents (N = 250) were used to characterize Arctic lamprey diet composition in 2014 and 2015. Differences among individual diets were evaluated by collection year, capture site, and fish size. Hard structures and tissues were observed during visual examinations of gut contents, and 10 ray-finned fish taxa were identified by DNA metabarcoding. The most frequently observed taxa included capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and gadids. Six taxa were reported for the first time as prey for Arctic lamprey. Individual diets differed between collection years, among capture sites, and among size classes; however, both collection year and size class explained only a small portion of diet variability (R 2 = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively) relative to capture site (R 2 = 0.49). These study results indicate that Arctic lamprey is a flesh-feeding species and highlight the value of DNA metabarcoding to characterize the diet of a poorly understood lamprey 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207