Trophic niche overlap and abundance reveal potential impact of interspecific interactions on a reintroduced fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptually, trophic niche overlap and species abundance can describe the strength and number of interspecific trophic interactions to determine the competitive impact on reintroduced species or other ecosystem changes. We use an example with young-of-year (YOY) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) reintroductions to determine whether trophic niche overlaps and abundances limit restoration success. Using seasonal stable isotopes and abundance estimates for invertivorous fishes in three Lake Ontario tributaries, we assessed community isotopic structure, trophic niche overlap, and the impact of the niche overlap by incorporating relative abundance. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) YOY could be a strong competitor with a high trophic niche overlap with Atlantic salmon YOY, but at lower abundances relative to Atlantic salmon there is minimal impact. Stream resident fish communities appeared to partition resources across seasons such that abundant species had low trophic niche overlap to minimize overall competition with Atlantic salmon YOY given available resources, indicating niche complementarity. Through joint consideration of trophic overlap and abundance using our conceptual model, the competitive impact of community composition on a reintroduced species could be assessed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".