Within- and among-population variation in the trophic position of a pelagic predator, lake trout (<i>Salvelinus namaycush</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many aquatic consumers have flexible feeding habits, and the diet and trophic position of a species can be expected to vary both within and among populations. In this study, we quantify the importance of both within- and among-population trophic variation for lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) using stable isotope designations of trophic position from 13 Ontario and Quebec lakes. Lake-to-lake differences explained 78% of the total variation in lake trout trophic position. Analysis using both stable isotopes and published dietary data demonstrated that the trophic position of lake trout failed to increase appreciably as a function of animal body size. This finding was attributed to weak predator size - prey size relationships as well as to there being no relationship between prey fish trophic position and body size. The variance in trophic position of a population reflects the extent to which individuals forage as trophic specialists; however, we did not identify any one factor that was correlated with within-population trophic variation. Our finding that much of the total variation in trophic position represents among-population differences indicates that considering the average trophic position of a population does not mask substantial within-population trophic variation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".