Effects of stocked trout on native fish communities in boreal foothills lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nasmith LE, Tonn WM, Paszkowski CA, Scrimgeour GJ. Effects of stocked trout on native fish communities in boreal foothills lakes. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 2010: 19: 279–289. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S Abstract – Ecological effects of stocking nonnative trout into lakes are receiving increased attention, especially in alpine environments. We assessed effects of stocked trout on native forage fishes in the boreal foothills of Alberta (Canada) by comparing fish density, population size structure and spatial and temporal activities in stocked and unstocked lakes over 3 years (2005–2007). The numerically dominant dace (primarily Phoxinus spp.) were larger in stocked lakes, consistent with size‐limited predation. Dace were also more crepuscular and concentrated on the lake‐bottom in stocked lakes, compared to more daytime activity in the water column in unstocked lakes. There were, however, no demonstrable effects of trout on the abundance of forage fish. The lack of major population‐level impacts of stocked trout suggests that current stocking practices, characteristics of boreal foothill lakes (e.g. thermal structure, abundant invertebrates, dense macrophytes) and/or behavioural adjustments of forage fish contribute to healthy native fish populations in our stocked lakes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".