Abiotic and biotic factors associated with brook trout invasiveness into bull trout streams of the Canadian Rockies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An information-theoretic approach was used to determine the association between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) invasiveness and a suite of abiotic and biotic factors, measured at 80 sites from 51 streams in the Canadian Rockies. The streams selected had confirmed brook trout invasions and were identified as current or historical nursery habitat for native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The biomass at most sites was strongly or completely dominated (95%–100%) by one species or the other, and sites were classified as having high brook trout invasiveness (>60% of the biomass of the community relative to remnant bull trout) or low invasiveness (<40%). Among abiotic factors, high brook trout invasiveness was positively associated with stream temperature and undercut bank habitat, but negatively associated with large in-stream substrate (cobbles and boulders). Among biotic factors, brook trout invasiveness was negatively associated with co-occurring rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or brown trout (Salmo trutta), two other introduced species. Brook trout appear to dominate communities over native bull trout where thermal or habitat niche opportunities are provided for them, although other non-native species may restrict their invasion into bull trout streams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".