The origins of ecotypic variation of rainbow trout: a test of environmental vs. genetically based differences in morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although morphological plasticity has been observed in a variety of taxa, few experimental studies have compared the relative proportion of morphological variability that is accounted for by environmentally induced plasticity, and how much is because of genetically based differences among populations. We compared the morphology of six rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations from different ecotypic categories that were raised under flowing vs. standing-water conditions. Our data indicate that both environmental conditions and ecotypic differences account for a significant proportion of variation in morphology. Among ecotype effects, however, accounted for a much larger proportion of morphological variability than environmental conditions. Rainbow trout from stream populations had deeper caudal peduncles, and longer fins than lake populations, and rainbow trout from a piscivorous population had larger mouth and head lengths than all other ecotypes. Environmentally induced differences in morphology were primarily related to differences in mouth and head lengths, as well as fin length. Relative to morphometric differences from natural rainbow trout populations, most characteristics deviated in the same direction in our experimental populations. Our data indicate that morphological differences across rainbow trout populations have a genetic basis and may represent locally adaptive characteristics and highlight the role of ecology in promoting phenotypic divergence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".