Anadromy and residency in steelhead and rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>): a review of the processes and patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oncorhynchus mykiss form partially migratory populations with anadromous fish that undergo marine migrations and residents that complete their life cycle in fresh water. Many populations’ anadromous components are threatened or endangered, prompting interest in understanding ecological and evolutionary processes underlying anadromy and residency. In this paper, we synthesize information to better understand genetic and environmental influences on O. mykiss life histories, identify critical knowledge gaps, and suggest next steps. Anadromy and residency appear to reflect interactions among genetics, individual condition, and environmental influences. First, an increasing body of literature suggests that anadromous and resident individuals differ in the expression of genes related to growth, smoltification, and metabolism. Second, the literature supports the conditional strategy theory, where individuals adopt a life history pattern based on their conditional status relative to genetic thresholds along with ultimate effects of size and age at maturation and iteroparity. However, except for a generally positive association between residency and high lipid content plus a large attainable size in fresh water, the effects of body size and growth are inconsistent. Thus, individuals can exhibit plasticity in variable environments. Finally, patterns in anadromy and residency among and within populations suggested a wide range of possible environmental influences at different life stages, from freshwater temperature to marine survival. Although we document a number of interesting correlations, direct tests of mechanisms are scarce and little data exist on the extent of residency and anadromy. Consequently, we identified as many data gaps as conclusions, leaving ample room for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".