The influence of hydrological and biotic processes on brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>) population dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological and biotic forces constrain brown trout (Salmo trutta) population dynamics, but tests of their role across numerous streams are uncommon. In 30 French stream reaches, using 58 samples (1 per year) each, we investigated whether the year-to-year seasonal hydrology influenced annual trout densities within reaches, and whether the relationships were shared by all reaches. We also searched for intraspecific interactions between and within cohorts. Trout data were age class (0+, 1+, and adults) densities. For each year, hydrology was described using 13 variables, each computed for a reproduction, emergence, and growth period related to the biological cycle of trout. We used analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) to test how trout densities at year n 1 and hydrology at year n influenced trout densities at year n. High flows during emergence significantly reduced the 0+ densities, consistently across the 30 reaches. Then, 1+ and adult densities were linked, respectively, to 0+ and 1+ densities from the previous year. Analyses also revealed density-dependent survival mechanisms for the 0+ cohort, suggesting intracohort competition. Therefore, hydrology constrains trout dynamics only during the critical emergence period, after which intracohort interactions regulate the 0+ density. Such mechanisms, validated across 30 environmentally different reaches, seem to be fundamental to trout population dynamics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".