Environmental factors correlate with hybridization in stocked brook charr (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocking is a common practice throughout the world that may increase hybridization between wild and domesticated populations. Stocking intensity alone does not always fully explain the observed patterns of hybridization, suggesting that the intensity of hybridization may be modulated by environmental factors. Using brook charr (i.e., brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis ) as a model, the objective of this study was to assess the relative effect of environmental factors and stocking intensity on the level of hybridization observed within brook charr from 15 lacustrine populations of two wildlife reserves in Quebec, Canada. The level of hybridization significantly increased with (i) the number of stocking events, (ii) a reduction in both surface area and maximum depth of lakes, and (iii) a reduction in dissolved oxygen and an increase in temperature and pH. These results suggest that levels of hybridization were affected by the availability and quality of lacustrine habitats as well as by the extent of propagule pressure. Our study provides the first demonstration that knowledge of environmental features may help predict the effects of stocking on the genetic integrity of wild populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".