Predicting riverine fish production using empirical models and the metabolic theory of ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fish production integrates many different measures of community performance, such as abundance, biomass, growth, and reproduction, into one valuable quantitative metric but requires resource intensive data for empirical estimation. While published empirical models and the metabolic theory of ecology (MTE) represent alternative methods to estimate fish production, few studies have focused on productivity models for stream fish assemblages. The goal of our study was to determine whether existing empirical models and elements of the metabolic theory of ecology can reliably estimate stream fish productivity. We used production estimates from the literature (n = 107) to parameterize models based on the metabolic theory of ecology and new estimates of stream fish production from North America (n = 78) to compare and validate all models. Using major axis regression, we determined that while all models had strongly correlated production estimates relative to the observed values (r2 range: [0.496, 0.815]), not all the models produced accurate estimates. The MTE model with the temperature component had a poorer predictive performance (RMSE = 0.502) relative to models based solely on allometric scaling (RMSE range: [0.299, 0.380]). We conclude that standard production models can generate relative estimates of production using general fish sample data, however, the accuracy and precision of the estimates can vary among the models. Our study highlights the need for productivity estimates for stream fish assemblages from different geographic regions, to test empirical models with novel datasets, and for further investigation of temperature effects on fish productivity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".