Dietary fat concentrations influence fatty acid assimilation patterns in Atlantic pollock ( <i>Pollachius virens</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key aspect in the use of fatty acids (FA) to estimate predator diets using quantitative FA signature analysis (QFASA) is the ability to account for FA assimilation through the use of calibration coefficients (CC). Here, we tested the assumption that CC are independent of dietary fat concentrations by feeding Atlantic pollock ( Pollachius virens ) three formulated diets with very similar FA proportions but different fat concentrations (5–9% of diet) for 20 weeks. CC calculated using FA profiles of diet and triacylglycerols in pollock liver were significantly different for the three diets. To test the robustness of diet estimates to these differences, we used the CC set derived from feeding the diet with the lowest fat concentration, published prey FA profiles and realistic diet estimates of pollock to construct ‘pseudo-predators'. Application of QFASA to each pseudo-predator using the three sets of CC and the same prey FA profiles resulted in diet estimate biases of twofold for major prey items and approximately fivefold for minor prey items. This work illustrates the importance of incorporating diets with fat concentrations that are similar to natural prey when conducting feeding experiments to calculate CC. This article is part of the theme ‘The next horizons for lipids as ‘trophic biomarkers': evidence and significance of consumer modification of dietary fatty acids'.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".