Comparative trophic ecology of microhabitat‐associated guilds of reef fishes in the Adriatic Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reef ecosystems are characterized by highly heterogenous habitats and functionally diverse fish communities. Few studies have examined how functional diversity differs among habitats within these communities, i.e., species associated with a specific habitat may have similar trophic ecologies meaning that the functional diversity within the community is driven by habitat diversity or, conversely, high functional diversity within each habitat would indicate that resource segregation also occurs at the habitat level. We used stable isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen to estimate trophic position, resource use and ontogenetic niche shifts of 15 reef fishes associated with four distinct habitat types (cryptobenthic, epibenthic sand, epibenthic rock and hyperbenthic) on the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea. Trophic ecology was quite similar across fish assemblages, but there was strong evidence of niche segregation among fish species within each assemblage showing high functional diversity within each microhabitat. The sampled fish community contained benthic and pelagic resource users, along with multiple intermediate generalists. Consumer stable isotope ratios revealed considerable interspecific variation in resource use among fishes within each habitat type. The cryptobenthic fishes were a notable exception to this trend with the narrow range of resource use values, indicating reliance of these species on a single resource. The greatest diversity of trophic positions within a guild was observed in cryptobenthic and rock-associated epibenthic fishes. The majority of observed ontogenetic variation in studied fish species reflected an increase in benthic resource use and trophic position. However, the degree of ontogenetic variation in trophic ecology of studied species, if present, was generally low, showing no dramatic change in the ecology of any species. The size structuring among guilds was considerable, with cryptobenthic fishes the smallest on average and hyperbenthic fishes the largest, despite guilds having similar ranges of trophic positions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".