Habitat use, home range, movements and interactions of introduced<i>Lepomis gibbosus</i>and native<i>Salmo trutta</i>in a small stream of Southern England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Radio telemetry data were analysed to assess the microhabitat use, movement patterns, home range overlap and interspecific interactions of non‐native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus (L.) and native brown trout Salmo trutta (L.) in a small English stream located immediately below a commercial angling lake from which pumpkinseed escaped. Although both species favoured pool habitats, brown trout preferred higher velocities and coarser substrata compared with pumpkinseed. Also, some individual brown trout preferred deeper waters than did pumpkinseed. Home range area of brown trout was substantially larger than that of pumpkinseed in spring and summer, and for both species, home range area in autumn was significantly smaller than in the other seasons. Range centre distribution analysis revealed that both species were distributed significantly nonrandomly within the stream during all seasons. There was substantial home range overlap between the two species in all seasons, the greatest being in spring. Overall distances moved were greatest during spring for both species, with brown trout moving greater distances relative to pumpkinseed. However, the absence of mutual attraction or avoidance between the species, as well as the lack of cohesion in preferred habitats and strong territorial fidelity, suggests little or no impact of introduced pumpkinseed on resident brown trout.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".