Interspecific hybridization between sympatric coastal cutthroat and coastal rainbow/steelhead trout on Vancouver Island, British Columbia: A conservation and evolutionary examination.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sympatric coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki ) and coastal rainbow/steelhead trout (O. mykiss irideus ) are thought to be reproductively isolated primarily by spatial and temporal separation. However, interspecific hybridization has been documented, thus raising the questions of how widespread hybridization is within their native range, and what are the nature and status of reproductive isolating mechanisms (i.e. prezygotic or postzygotic) in the hybridizing sympatric populations? In a broad survey of 37 populations on Vancouver Island, hybridization between these trout species was found to be widespread (Chapter 2). The frequency of hybridization varied among locations (HI = 3%--88%; II = 2%--54%), with some populations displaying hybrid levels indicative of hybrid swarms and may be undergoing 'hybrid meltdown'. Several environmental factors appear to influence hybridization (e.g. forest harvesting, stocking, habitat availability, watershed size), however, no single factor appears to have a dominant effect. There is no consistent evidence for selection acting against first-generation (F1) hybrids, and in backcross hybrids inconsistent results implicate environment-dependent (i.e. extrinsic) selection (Chapter 3). Hybridization is reciprocal, but nuclear marker patterns show that the direction of hybridization is unidirectional in some populations (n = 5 out of 13 populations). Based on cytonuclear disequilibrium levels, a remarkable reproductive bias appears to exist (i.e. frequency of backcross hybrids with matched nuclear-mitochondrial marker composition exceeded mismatched genotypes). Selection against mismatch genotypes may be occurring, although a behavioural mating bias is more likely.Dept. of Biological Sciences. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2004 .B44. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 43-01, page: 0157. Adviser: Daniel Heath. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2004.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".