Indirect versus direct effects of freshwater browning on larval fish foraging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish foraging and energy flow between trophic levels are predicted to decline with freshwater browning due to decreased light availability. Studies investigating these predictions have focused on juvenile and adult fishes; however, the larval stage represents a “critical period” in development. We investigated the indirect (i.e., prey availability) versus direct (i.e., visual foraging) effects of browning on zooplankton–larval fish interactions by altering water colour with SuperHume (absorbance at 440 nm = 1.6–10.8 m −1 ). Phytoplankton and zooplankton densities were monitored across treatments for 1 month to simulate the time leading up to fish spawning in the spring. Larval largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were then introduced to assess indirect effects on fish feeding, growth, and survival. Direct effects on largemouth bass and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) foraging on zooplankton were determined with separate short-term experiments. Browning did not directly alter the ability of larvae to capture prey. However, indirect effects on larval fish foraging, growth, and survival were observed as phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance decreased with increased browning. Our data suggest browning may reduce energy transfer to larval fish due to a reduction in prey but not visual foraging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".