Resource partitioning may limit interspecific competition among Arctic fish species during early life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) strongly dominates the ichthyoplankton assemblages of High Arctic seas, hence competition with other native species seldom has been studied. Yet, interspecific competition could negatively impact the survival of early life stages of fishes in Arctic areas where higher diversity prevails. We surveyed the ichthyoplankton community of the Greenland Sea, in August–September 2017. Gadids (mostly Arctic cod, with a low number of ice cod Arctogadus glacialis) and non-gadids (bigeye sculpin Triglops nybelini and gelatinous snailfish Liparis fabricii) co-dominated age-0 fish assemblages. Here, we document their diet, prey selectivity, horizontal and vertical distributions as well as that of their prey to assess resource partitioning and the potential for interspecific competition. All fish species occupied the top 30 m of the water column, but Arctic cod occurred in highest abundances over the continental slope, whereas other species distributed almost exclusively over the continental shelf. A particle track analysis suggests that Arctic cod larvae could have hatched in the open waters of the Northeast Water Polynya, drifted with the East Greenland Current, and benefited from the high secondary production associated with these oceanographic features. The diet of gadids did not overlap significantly with the diet of non-gadids, but strong selectivity for Pseudocalanus spp. and Calanus spp. copepodites among the larvae suggests potential competition for these key prey items, although limited by size partitioning of the prey. We thus conclude that interspecific competition among early life stages of Arctic fishes is limited for now. However, changing conditions and the northward range expansion of boreal species following climate change could increase competition and, in turn, negatively affect the recruitment of Arctic ichthyoplankton.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".