Ontogenetic Dietary Changes and Thiamine Status of Lake Ontario Chinook Salmon, 2005–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the Great Lakes, an Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus diet has been reported to cause thiamine deficiency in salmonines as a result of high thiaminase activity. The ontogeny of thiamine deficiency and its relationship to Alewife consumption have not been determined in Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha within this system. Using stable isotope mixing models along with muscle thiamine, we assessed ontogenetic changes in the diet and corresponding muscle thiamine status of Lake Ontario Chinook Salmon ranging in TL from 100 to 1,000 mm. Thiamine levels were highest in young of the year collected in a tributary of Lake Ontario but declined once Chinook Salmon entered Lake Ontario. In Lake Ontario, the diets of juvenile (200–400 mm; 97–99%) and adult (>400 mm; 97–100%) Chinook Salmon consisted almost entirely of Alewives as estimated using mixing models. This Alewife diet was associated with an ontogenetic decline in muscle thiamine among Chinook Salmon. The asymptotic decline in thiamine concentration with increasing size plateaued at 720–758 pmol/g of muscle. The proportion of individuals below a thiamine threshold of 500 pmol/g (associated with a loss of equilibrium) increased with TL up to 799 mm and then declined between 800 and 1,000 mm. At these muscle concentrations, no outward signs of thiamine deficiency were observed. Calculation of total mass accumulation of body stores of thiamine (muscle concentration times body weight) showed an unexpected and significant increase with size. Although it appears that dietary Alewives affected thiamine status, there were undetermined factors, such as incomplete destruction of thiamine by thiaminase, gut synthesis of thiamine, gill absorption of water thiamine, and/or other factors, that contributed to the overall thiamine status of these Chinook Salmon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".