Propagule pressure and stream characteristics influence introgression: cutthroat and rainbow trout in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization and introgression between introduced and native salmonids threaten the continued persistence of many inland cutthroat trout species. Environmental models have been developed to predict the spread of introgression, but few studies have assessed the role of propagule pressure. We used an extensive set of fish Stocking records and geographic information system (GIS) data to produce a spatially explicit index of potential propagule pressure exerted by introduced rainbow trout in the Upper Kootenay River, British Columbia, Canada. We then used logistic regression and the information-theoretic approach to test the ability of a set of environmental and spatial variables to predict the level of introgression between native westslope cutthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout. Introgression was assessed using between four and seven co-dominant, diagnostic nuclear markers at 45 sites in 31 different streams. The best model for predicting introgression included our GIS propagule pressure index and an environmental variable that accounted for the biogeoclimatic zone of the site (r2=0.62). This model was 1.4 times more likely to explain introgression than the next-best model, which consisted of only the propagule pressure index variable. We created a composite model based on the model-averaged results of the seven top models that included environmental, spatial, and propagule pressure variables. The propagule pressure index had the highest importance weight (0.995) of all variables tested and was negatively related to sites with no introgression. This study used an index of propagule pressure and demonstrated that propagule pressure had the greatest influence on the level of introgression between a native and introduced trout in a human-induced hybrid zone.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".