Larval cisco and lake whitefish exhibit high distributional overlap within nursery areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coregonine fishes, including lake whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) and cisco ( C. artedi ), are socioecologically important in the Laurentian Great Lakes and of conservation concern, but the processes driving recruitment variability are unclear. In Lake Ontario, cisco and lake whitefish exhibit similar spawning behaviours and early life histories, but population trajectories are diverging. One hypothesis is that sympatric cisco and lake whitefish larvae occupy distinct habitats and experience dissimilar local environmental conditions, despite co‐occurrence within nursery areas. We described the spatiotemporal distributions of larval cisco and lake whitefish among multiple Lake Ontario embayment nursery areas, characterised physical habitat features associated with their distributions, determined the degree of spatial habitat partitioning between species and evaluated how habitat niche divergence occurred along an ontogenetic progression. Both species were widely distributed across larval nursery areas, though lake whitefish were less abundant and more narrowly distributed than cisco. Within the yolk sac stage, lake whitefish occupied more nearshore, shallower and colder waters than cisco, indicating potential habitat niche partitioning between congeners. However, distributional differences were subtle and likely driven by differential hatch timing and staggered ontogenetic habitat shifts. Combined, our results illustrate similar habitat use between cisco and lake whitefish through the larval stage and demonstrate that ontogeny and species‐specific phenology influence habitat use for these species. This study provides additional evidence that the early life histories of cisco and lake whitefish are highly similar and does not support the hypothesis that larval habitat use differences are a major driver of differential recruitment success for these species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".