MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578237221 · doi:10.1111/fwb.12095

Stocked trout have minimal effects on littoral invertebrate assemblages of productive fish‐bearing lakes: a whole‐lake BACI study

2013· article· en· W1578237221 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Justin R. Hanisch, William M. Tonn, CYNTHIA A. PASZKOSWKI, Garry J. Scrimgeour

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsStockingTroutLittoral zoneBiologyBiomass (ecology)FisheryEcologyAbundance (ecology)InvertebratePredationRainbow troutRelative species abundanceBrown troutZooplanktonFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss [Walbaum]) is commonly stocked as a sport fish throughout the world but can have serious negative effects on native species, especially in headwater systems. Productive fish‐bearing lakes represent a frequently stocked yet infrequently studied system, and effects of trout in these systems may differ from those in headwater lakes. 2. We used a Before‐After Control‐Impact (BACI) design to determine how stocked trout affected assemblage‐level and taxon‐level biomass, abundance and average length of littoral invertebrates in a stocked lake relative to three unstocked control lakes in the boreal foothills of Alberta, Canada. Lakes were studied 1 year before and for 2 years after stocking. Because characteristics of productive fish‐bearing lakes should buffer impacts of introduced fish, we predicted that trout would not affect assemblage‐level structure of littoral invertebrates but might reduce the abundance or average length of large‐bodied taxa frequently consumed by trout. 3. Relative to the unstocked control lakes, biomass, but not abundance, of the littoral invertebrate assemblage was affected indirectly by trout through increases of some taxa after trout stocking. At the individual taxon‐level, trout stocking did not affect most (23 of the 27) taxa, with four taxa increasing in abundance or biomass after stocking. Only one taxon, Chironomidae, showed evidence of size‐selective predation by trout, being consumed frequently by trout and decreasing significantly in average length after stocking. 4. Our results contrast with the strong negative effects of trout stocking on invertebrate assemblages commonly reported from headwater lakes. A combination of factors, including large and robust native populations of forage fish, the generalised diet of trout, overwinter aeration, relatively high productivity and dense macrophyte beds, likely works in concert to reduce potentially negative effects of stocked trout in these systems. As such, productive, fish‐bearing lakes may represent a suitable system for trout stocking, especially where native sport fish populations are lacking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207