Intra‐population variation in anadromy and reproductive life span in rainbow trout introduced in the Santa Cruz River, Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scale patterns, maturational status and otolith microchemistry (strontium to calcium ratios) were analysed in sympatric anadromous and non‐anadromous rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Santa Cruz River (Patagonia, Argentina) to investigate the life‐history differences of anadromous and non‐anadromous lifestyles and the association between maternal origin and progeny life history. The analyses revealed that both forms can give rise to one another, indicating a single population with alternative phenotypes. Anadromous fish smolted at ages 2 and 3 years, matured after 1 to 2 years in the ocean, and survived up to 11 years, spawning up to eight times. Non‐anadromous fish survived up to 6 years, spawning up to three times. The extended reproductive life span associated with anadromy in this river suggests that increased energetic and physiological demands associated with ocean migration may not necessarily result in reduced postspawning survival, as has been suggested for salmonids in general. Alternatively, reduction in parity may be regarded as the evolutionary outcome of reproductive traits resulting from the adoption of anadromy (i.e. augmented reproductive investment) coupled with long‐range migrations to and from the ocean. The life‐history patterns of Santa Cruz River rainbow trout provide a natural experiment for investigating the evolutionary transition and maintenance of anadromy and non‐anadromy within salmonid populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".