Integrating prey dynamics, diet, and biophysical factors across an estuary seascape for four fish species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 613:151-169 (2019) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12896 Integrating prey dynamics, diet, and biophysical factors across an estuary seascape for four fish species Michael Arbeider1,*, Ciara Sharpe1, Charmaine Carr-Harris2,3, Jonathan W. Moore1 1Earth to Oceans Research Group, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada 2Skeena Fisheries Commission, 3135 Barnes Crescent, Kispiox, British Columbia, V0J 1Y4, Canada 3Present address: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 417 2nd Ave W, Prince Rupert, British Columbia, V8J 1G8, Canada *Corresponding author: marbeide@sfu.ca ABSTRACT: Estuary food webs support many fishes whose habitat preferences and population dynamics may be controlled by prey abundance and distribution. Yet the identity and dynamics of important estuarine prey of many species are either unknown or highly variable between regions. As anthropogenic development in estuaries increases, so does the need to understand how these environments may be supporting economically, culturally, and ecologically important fishes. Here, we examine how important estuary fishes integrate their prey across the seascape and what may influence prey dynamics. Specifically, we surveyed juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, juvenile sockeye salmon O. nerka, Pacific herring Clupea pallasii, and surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus diets along with zooplankton abundance in the estuary of the Skeena River (British Columbia, Canada) at a relatively fine scale. We found diets were highly variable, even within a species, but 1 or 2 prey composed most diet contents per species. Juvenile coho salmon primarily consumed terrestrial insects and larval fish, whereas sockeye salmon primarily consumed harpacticoid copepods. In contrast, small pelagic fish (Pacific herring and surf smelt) primarily consumed calanoid copepods, which were the most abundant prey in the environment. We found that certain prey groups were correlated with biophysical factors. For example, calanoid copepod abundance was positively correlated with salinity, whereas harpacticoid copepod abundance was highest over eelgrass sites. Identifying key prey species and how they distribute within the estuary seascape is an integral link in understanding the food-web foundation of fish habitat use in areas under pressure from anthropogenic development. KEY WORDS: Juvenile salmon · Small pelagic fish · Estuary · Diet · Prey · Oncorhynchus · Clupea · Hypomesus Full text in pdf format Supplementary material PreviousNextCite this article as: Arbeider M, Sharpe C, Carr-Harris C, Moore JW (2019) Integrating prey dynamics, diet, and biophysical factors across an estuary seascape for four fish species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 613:151-169. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12896 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 613. Online publication date: March 21, 2019 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2019 Inter-Research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".