Prey Availability and Diet of Early Life Stages of Lake Whitefish ( <i>Coregonus clupeaformis</i> ) in the Fishing Islands of Lake Huron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Declines in recruitment of lake whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) in the Laurentian Great Lakes have been attributed to a reduction in the amount of zooplankton prey available to young life stages, stemming from the ecosystem effects of invasive dreissenid mussels. Here, we examine the diets of two life stages of lake whitefish, the larval and post‐larval stages, in relation to zooplankton availability in the environment at a historically important spawning shoal complex in Lake Huron to better understand the potential for food limitation to influence the growth and survival of these critical early life stages. The digestive tracts of larval (size range 12–26 mm) and post‐larval (size range 23–43 mm) lake whitefish were extracted, and contents were identified and enumerated to describe feeding strategies and calculate electivity indices to assess selection for specific prey groups and sizes. We found that the amount of food consumed varied among years and there was an ontogenetic shift in feeding strategy, with larval fish having a more generalist diet than post‐larval fish. The most important prey items were calanoid copepods for larvae and copepods and adult/pupa staged dipterans for post‐larval fish. Zooplankton densities in the environment were often low, variable among years, and mostly comprised of the smallest zooplankton taxa, nauplii, which were the least preferred prey group of larval fish. The peak in zooplankton density was variable among years, including being absent, and occurred after the peak of larval abundance. Thus, it is possible that low zooplankton availability is increasing the scope for food limitation and contributing to recruitment variation in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".