MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026304544 · doi:10.1111/jfb.14400

Fish as predators and prey: <scp>DNA</scp>‐based assessment of their role in food webs

2020· review· en· W3026304544 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Traugott, Bettina Thalinger, Corinna Wallinger, Daniela Sint

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsTrophic levelBiologyPredationFish <Actinopterygii>Food webEcologyForage fishEnvironmental DNAFisheryBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fish are both consumers and prey, and as such part of a dynamic trophic network. Measuring how they are trophically linked, both directly and indirectly, to other species is vital to comprehend the mechanisms driving alterations in fish communities in space and time. Moreover, this knowledge also helps to understand how fish communities respond to environmental change and delivers important information for implementing management of fish stocks. DNA-based methods have significantly widened our ability to assess trophic interactions in both marine and freshwater systems and they possess a range of advantages over other approaches in diet analysis. In this review we provide an overview of different DNA-based methods that have been used to assess trophic interactions of fish as consumers and prey. We consider the practicalities and limitations, and emphasize critical aspects when analysing molecular derived trophic data. We exemplify how molecular techniques have been employed to unravel food web interactions involving fish as consumers and prey. In addition to the exciting opportunities DNA-based approaches offer, we identify current challenges and future prospects for assessing fish food webs where DNA-based approaches will play an important role.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations71
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207