Phenotypic divergence of exotic fish populations is shaped by spatial proximity and habitat differences across an invaded landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Brown trout (Salmo trutta) were introduced into, and subsequently colonized, a number of disparate watersheds on the island of Newfoundland, Canada (110,638 km 2 ), starting in 1883. Questions: Do environmental features of recently invaded habitats shape population-level phenotypic variability? Are patterns of phenotypic variability suggestive of parallel adaptive divergence? And does the extent of phenotypic divergence increase as a function of distance between populations? Hypotheses: Populations that display similar phenotypes will inhabit similar environments. Patterns in morphology, coloration, and growth in an invasive stream-dwelling fish should be consistent with adaptation, and populations closer to each other should be more similar than should populations that are farther apart. Organism and study system: Sixteen brown trout populations of probable common descent, inhabiting a gradient of environments. These populations include the most ancestral (∼130 years old) and most recently established (∼20 years old). Analytical methods: We used multivariate statistical techniques to quantify morphological (e.g. body shape via geometric morphometrics and linear measurements of traits), meristic (e.g. counts of pigmentation spots), and growth traits from 1677 individuals. To account for ontogenetic and allometric effects on morphology, we conducted separate analyses on three distinct size/age classes. We used the BIO-ENV routine and Mantel tests to measure the correlation between phenotypic and habitat features. Results: Phenotypic similarity was significantly correlated with environmental similarity, especially in the larger size classes of fish. The extent to which these associations between phenotype and habitat result from parallel evolution, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, or historical founder effects is not known. Observed patterns of body shape and fin sizes were generally consistent with predictions of adaptive trait patterns, but other traits showed less consistent patterns with habitat features. Phenotypic differences increased as a function of straight-line distance (km) between watersheds and to a lesser extent fish dispersal distances, which suggests habitat has played a more significant role in shaping population phenotypes compared with founder effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".