Hybridization with rainbow trout alters life history traits of native westslope cutthroat trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization with rainbow trout is a primary threat to the conservation of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi; hereafter cutthroat) across its native range. Cutthroat conservation policy hinges on the degree to which populations are hybridized, yet little is known about differences in the life history of individuals with varying degrees of rainbow trout ancestry. We examined differences in growth, fecundity, and migration timing between cutthroat and hybrid trout in migratory components of populations from 2006 to 2009 in the Jocko River, Montana. We detected positive linear relationships between rainbow trout ancestry and somatic growth and egg size, but a negative relationship with fecundity. US federal policy suggests a threshold of 20% rainbow ancestry for cutthroat conservation. In our study, hybrids with ≥20% rainbow trout ancestry had significantly lower fecundity and larger egg sizes and migrated earlier at lower discharges and stream temperatures than individuals with <20% rainbow trout ancestry. Our results did not indicate threshold changes but rather continuous differences associated with rainbow trout ancestry, suggesting that establishing a biologically relevant cutoff for conservation purposes will be problematic.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".