Realized thermal niche approach eliminates temperature bias in bioenergetic model estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bioenergetics models estimate ectotherm growth, production, and prey consumption – all key for effective ecosystem management during changing global temperatures. Based on species‐specific allometric and thermodynamic relationships, these models typically use the species' lab‐derived optimum temperatures (physiological optimum) as opposed to empirical field data (realized thermal niche) that reflect actual thermal experience. Yet, dynamic behavioral thermoregulation mediated by biotic and abiotic interactions may provide substantial divergence between physiological optimum and realized thermal niche temperatures to significantly bias model outcomes. Here, using the Wisconsin bioenergetics model and in‐situ year‐round temperature data, we tested the two approaches and compared the maximum attainable lifetime weight and lifetime prey consumption estimates for two salmonid species with differing life histories. We demonstrate that using the realized thermal niche is the better approach because it eliminates significant biases in estimates produced by the physiological optimum. Specifically, using the physiological optimum, slower‐growing Salvelinus namaycush maximum attainable lifetime weight was underestimated, and consumption overestimated, while fast‐growing Oncorhynchus tshawytscha maximum attainable weight was overestimated. While the physiological optimum approach is useful for theoretical studies, our results demonstrate the critical importance that models used by management utilize up‐to‐date system‐ and species‐specific field data representing actual in‐situ behaviors (i.e., realized thermal niche).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".