Using otolith δ18O to assess habitat selection and growth in young-of-the-year Arctic charr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Otoliths from young-of-the-year Arctic charr, captured between 1983 and 85 in the Ikarut River, Labrador, were used to determine thermal habitat use and the applicability of the ideal free distribution model as a description of the distribution of individuals between warmer and cooler water habitats. Across the growing season, otolith-derived temperatures tended to exceed river temperatures monitored at 1 m depth, indicating a preferential use of warmer waters. By the end of the growing season two thermal strategies were evident, use of warmer and cooler habitats as reflected in otolith-estimated mean thermal habitat use. There were no differences in proxy measures of fitness resulting from the different thermal habitats, suggesting young-of-the-year distributed themselves among heterogeneous thermal habitats in a manner consistent with the ideal free distribution. Results were also consistent with theories of habitat selection where individuals minimize the predation-foraging gain ratio via the “asset protection principle” suggesting that many Arctic charr maximize growth efficiency rather than growth rate. Either model suggests behavioural bias in otolith-derived estimates of thermal environments, requiring that derived temperatures must be interpreted with caution when used to infer historical conditions as they represent the portion of the habitat used and are not general indicators of environmental conditions. Nevertheless, studies of otolith temperatures provide important ecological insights into the use of available thermal habitat and point to patterns of behaviour which may become constrained as environments change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".