Impacts of Exotic Rainbow Trout on Habitat Use by Native Juvenile Salmonid Species at an Early Invasive Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The detrimental impact of introduced Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss on native communities has been well documented around the world. Previous studies have focused on streams where the invasion has been successful and the species is fully established. In eastern Quebec, the invasion of Rainbow Trout is an ongoing process and, for now, there are few established populations. The presence of two native salmonids in these rivers, Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis, implies a risk of competition for habitat, despite the relatively low density of the Rainbow Trout populations, as all three species are known to use similar resources. In order to evaluate the strength of the interaction between the invading fish and the native species, we sampled nine rivers (five with Rainbow Trout and four free of Rainbow Trout) and characterized the habitat used by the three salmonids at the juvenile stage. River‐scale analysis revealed that in invaded rivers, Rainbow Trout were associated with habitats characterized by closer proximity to the shoreline and by increasing shoreline cover. Estimates of habitat niche overlap integrating depth, water velocity, and substrate size revealed that niche overlap between Brook Trout and Atlantic Salmon significantly increased in the presence of Rainbow Trout. Furthermore, the two indigenous species preferred full cover in the absence of Rainbow Trout but in the presence of Rainbow Trout, which also preferred full cover, the indigenous species moved to more open habitats. Rainbow Trout showed a high growth rate, despite a size disadvantage at the beginning of the growing season, as compared with Atlantic Salmon and Brook Trout. It thus appears that even at an early stage of invasion, when its density is still low, Rainbow Trout significantly impact native salmonids.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".