Use of Strain, Season of Stocking, and Size at Stocking to Improve Fisheries for Rainbow Trout in Reservoirs with Walleyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated stockings of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in Pathfinder and Alcova reservoirs, Wyoming, to determine what combination of strain, season of stocking, and size at stocking maximized angler catch in the presence of walleyes Stizostedion vitreum. Coded wire tags were used to identify individual rainbow trout to stock group. Angler catch of Kamloops rainbow trout and fall rainbow trout in Pathfinder Reservoir exceeded returns of Eagle Lake rainbow trout. Differences in strain performance in Alcova Reservoir were less pronounced. The importance of season of stocking was identified with fall-stocked (Aug–Oct) rainbow trout returning to anglers in higher numbers than those stocked during spring (Mar–Jun). Size-at-stocking evaluations indicate that large, catchable-size (>208 mm total length) rainbow trout maximize use of hatchery facilities over stocking greater numbers of small, catchable (178–207 mm) or subcatchable (127–177 mm) sizes. Pond feeding trials conducted with three walleye size-classes and three rainbow trout sizes showed that 127-mm rainbow trout were highly vulnerable to walleyes as small as 330–378 mm. Intermediate-size rainbow trout (178 mm) were not readily consumed by 381–432-mm walleyes, but they were vulnerable to 483–533-mm walleyes. At 229 mm, rainbow trout appeared invulnerable to walleyes in the largest size-class (483–533 mm) we studied. Rainbow trout stocked at large, catchable sizes are probably vulnerable to fewer walleyes compared with small, catchable and subcatchable sizes, allowing greater numbers to survive predation and recruit to the sport fishery.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".