You are what you eat: is suboptimal larval diet linked to the slow recovery of the Newfoundland capelin stock?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Capelin on the Newfoundland and Labrador shelves (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Divisions 2J3KL) collapsed in 1991 and have experienced only a modest recovery in 30 + years. Year-class strength of Newfoundland capelin is set early in its life history. Using 6 years of larval data (2002, 2006, 2014, 2020–2022), the main objective of this study was to use trophodynamics to identify potential bottom-up drivers of capelin larval survival. The proportion of empty guts generally decreased with ontogeny; however, prey presence was low with only 18.9% of larvae containing at least one prey item in their guts. Larval diet was mainly composed of calanoid copepodites, Pseudocalanus spp., Temora spp., Oithona spp., and phytoplankton. There was a shift in diet with ontogeny, with copepodite stages increasing in importance with ontogeny. Although larval trophodynamics since 2002 differed from those described in the 1980s, with a higher proportion of empty guts and a broader prey spectrum, this comparison is confounded by spatial and temporal limitations of the available dataset. Using general additive models, mean recent 3-day larval otolith growth rate was related to in situ zooplankton prey availability, temperature, salinity, presence/absence of prey, and prey carbon contents. Larval growth was positively associated with copepod nauplii densities in 2 of the 3 years, indicating that a match between larval occurrence and copepod nauplii may be an important driver of larval growth. A match-mismatch between larval occurrence and their preferred prey may be a potential bottom-up mechanism to explain the prolonged Newfoundland capelin stock recovery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".