Interactions of slimy sculpin (<i>Cottus cognatus</i>) with native and nonnative trout: consequences for growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined growth of native slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and nonnative brown trout (Salmo trutta) to investigate potential interactions of a native nongame fish with native and nonnative trout. Enclosures (1 m2) were stocked with five treatments (juvenile brown trout with sculpin, juvenile brook trout with sculpin, and single species controls) at three densities. Treatments (with replication) were placed in riffles in Valley Creek, Minnesota, and growth rates were measured for six experiments. We examined the difference in growth of each species in combined species treatments compared with each species alone. We did not find evidence of inter actions between brook trout and sculpin, regardless of density or fish size. However, sculpin gained greater mass when alone than with brown trout when sculpin were >16 g. Likewise, brown trout grew more when alone than with sculpin when brown trout were >24 g. In contrast, brown trout ≤5 g grew more with sculpin compared with treatments alone. We suggest that native brook trout and sculpin coexist without evidence of competition, whereas nonnative brown trout may compete with sculpin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".