Nitrogen isotope composition of amino acids reveals trophic partitioning in two sympatric amphipods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract According to ecological theory, two species cannot occupy the same niche. Using nitrogen isotope analyses (δ15N) of amino acids, we tested the extent to which two sympatric deposit‐feeding amphipods, Monoporeia affinis and Pontoporeia femorata, partition their trophic resources. We found that trophic position (TP) and resynthesis index (∑V; a proxy for degradation status of ingested material prior to assimilation by the consumer) differ between species. The surface‐feeding M. affinis had higher TP and intermediate ∑V, both pointing to a large contribution of metazoans in its diet. P. femorata, which feeds in the subsurface layers, had lower TP and a bimodal distribution of the ∑V values, supporting previous experimental evidence of a larger feeding niche. We also evaluated whether TP and ∑V values have consequences for amphipod fecundity and embryo viability and found that embryo viability in M. affinis was negatively linked to TP. Our results indicate that the amino acid‐δ15N data paired with information about reproductive status are useful for detecting differences in the trophic ecology of sympatric amphipods.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".