MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987211891 · doi:10.1139/f00-188

Habitat- and size-related variations in exotic trout impacts on native galaxiid fishes in New Zealand streams

2000· article· en· W1987211891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angus R. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroutBrown troutElectrofishingSalmoSTREAMSPredationFisheryRainbow troutHabitatBiologySalmonidaeEcologyRange (aeronautics)Fish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The factors controlling the effects of introduced trout on native galaxiid fishes in New Zealand streams were investigated by quantitative and qualitative electrofishing. Habitat assessments indicated that bed stability was closely related to total fish biomass. Exotic trout were not present at the most unstable sites but inhabited most medium to large streams with stable beds. Galaxiids (Galaxias vulgaris, Galaxias brevipinnis, and Galaxias paucispondylus) occurred at sites that spanned almost the entire range of habitat conditions and co-occurred with trout more frequently at intermediate levels of bed stability. However, galaxiids were absent from all sites with large (&gt;150-mm fork length (FL)) brown (Salmo trutta) and rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) trout. These streams tended to be larger, with more stable beds. In a field tank experiment, large brown trout consumed Canterbury galaxias (G. vulgaris), ranging in size from 48- to 94-mm FL, at a much higher rate than did small trout. Their predation of galaxiids appeared not to be size selective, so there was no size refuge for galaxiids from predation by large trout. These results indicate that predation by large trout has likely eliminated small-bodied galaxiids from many streams but that trout impact is limited by the availability of habitats suitable for large individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207