Trophic position scales positively with body size within but not among four species of rocky reef predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intra- and interspecifically, larger-bodied predators generally occupy higher trophic positions (TPs). With widespread declines in large predators, there is a need to understand their size-based trophic roles to predict ecosystem-level responses. In British Columbia, Canada, we examined size-based trophic interactions between predatory fishes—3 rockfish species (genus Sebastes ) and lingcod Ophiodon elongatus —and their prey, converting predator δ 15 N signatures to TP and analyzing stomach contents. Intraspecifically, TP scaled positively with predator length and gape width, but the rates of change varied by species. Interspecifically, TP did not scale positively with the observed mean sizes or known maximum sizes of species. Lingcod TP was lower than that of yelloweye and quillback rockfishes, which were 51 and 37%, respectively, smaller than lingcod. Yellowtail rockfish had the smallest average size, yet their mean TP did not differ significantly from that of lingcod. Neither species differences in some morphometric traits known to influence body size-TP relationships nor phylogenetic history explained these results. Most prey consumed were <20% of the predator’s size, which might partially explain the lack of a size-based trophic hierarchy among species. Currently, large size classes of rockfishes are being lost due to fisheries and perhaps climate-driven changes. Our findings on intraspecific size-TP relationships indicate that fishery removals of large individuals may diminish trophic structures. Interspecific comparisons of TP suggest that, along with size, species remain an important factor in understanding trophic dynamics. In addition, smaller-bodied predator species may have significant ecological roles to be considered in ecosystem-based fisheries management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".