Concurrent habitat and life history influences on effective/census population size ratios in stream‐dwelling trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower effective sizes (N(e)) than census sizes (N) are routinely documented in natural populations, but knowledge of how multiple factors interact to lower N(e)/N ratios is often limited. We show how combined habitat and life-history influences drive a 2.4- to 6.1-fold difference in N(e)/N ratios between two pristine brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations occupying streams separated by only 750 m. Local habitat features, particularly drainage area and stream depth, govern trout biomass produced in each stream. They also generate higher trout densities in the shallower stream by favoring smaller body size and earlier age-at-maturity. The combination of higher densities and reduced breeding site availability in the shallower stream likely leads to more competition among breeding trout, which results in greater variance in individual reproductive success and a greater reduction in N(e) relative to N. A similar disparity between juvenile or adult densities and breeding habitat availability is reported for other species and hence may also result in divergent N(e)/N ratios elsewhere. These divergent N(e)/N ratios between adjacent populations are also an instructive reminder for species conservation programs that genetic and demographic parameters may differ dramatically within species.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".