The importance of Calanus glacialis for the feeding success of young polar cod: a circumpolar synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the feeding ecology of polar cod (Boreogadus saida) during its first year of life is crucial to forecasting its response to the ongoing borealization of Arctic seas. We investigated the relationships between diet composition and feeding success in 1797 polar cod larvae and juveniles 4.5–55.6 mm standard length (SL) collected in five Arctic seas from 1993 to 2009. Prey were identified to species and developmental stages when possible, measured, and their carbon content was estimated using taxon-specific allometric equations. Feeding success was defined as the ratio of ingested carbon to fish weight. Carbon uptake in polar cod larvae < 15 mm was sourced primarily from calanoid copepods eggs and nauplii which were positively selected from the plankton. With increasing length, carbon sources shifted from eggs and nauplii to the copepodites of Calanus glacialis, Calanus hyperboreus and Pseudocalanus spp. Calanus glacialis copepodites were the main carbon source in polar cod > 25 mm and the only copepodite positively selected for. Pseudocalanus spp. copepodites became important replacement prey when C. glacialis left the epipelagic layer at the end of summer. Calanus glacialis was the preferred prey of polar cod, contributing from 23 to 84% of carbon uptake at any stage in the early development. Feeding success was determined by the number of prey captured in larvae < 15 mm and by the size of prey in juveniles > 30 mm. As Arctic seas warm, the progressive displacement of C. glacialis by the smaller Calanus finmarchicus could accelerate the replacement of polar cod, the dominant Arctic forage fish, by boreal 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".