Juvenile Rainbow Trout Production in New York Tributaries of Lake Ontario: Implications for Atlantic Salmon Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three Pacific salmonid species Onchorynchus spp. have replaced the extirpated Atlantic salmon Salmo salar as the main migratory salmonid in the Lake Ontario drainage. One of those species, the nonnative rainbow trout O. mykiss, has become widely distributed within the historical Atlantic salmon habitat, occupying an ecological niche similar to that of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Consequently, both a tributary's carrying capacity for Atlantic salmon and competition from established nonnative species are important when considering the feasibility of Atlantic salmon restoration. Estimation of juvenile rainbow trout production will help evaluate the capacity of tributaries to produce salmonids that occupy similar niches. Geostatistical methods were applied to standardized and efficiency-corrected electrofishing data from three of New York's best salmonid-producing streams to precisely estimate juvenile rainbow trout populations. Results indicated that each study stream could produce 20,000–40,000 age-0 and 4,000–10,000 age-1 and older rainbow trout per year. Statistical interpolation indicated areas of significantly different production potential and points of significant changes in productivity. Closer examination of the niche similarity and competitive potential of these two species is needed to properly interpret these estimates with regard to Atlantic salmon restoration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".