Does life‐history variability in salmonids affect habitat use by juveniles? A comparison among streams open and closed to anadromy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Migratory and resident forms of salmonids coexist in many river systems. Although such coexistence is widespread, little is known about its ecological basis and no studies have compared the habitat use of premigratory juveniles and residents. 2. We employed a comparative approach to explore the differential habitat use of juvenile anadromous and resident brook trout. This required the investigation of habitat use in streams closed to anadromy, containing only resident brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis ('resident-only' streams) and streams open to anadromy, containing coexisting Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and anadromous and resident brook trout ('migrant-resident' streams). 3. We demonstrate that fast habitats (riffles) are occupied more frequently in streams with migratory brook trout relative to riffle habitats of streams with only resident brook trout. In contrast, occupation of slow current velocities (pools) was observed in both migrant-resident and resident-only streams as both stream types contain resident brook trout. The net effect is a wider distribution of occupied habitats (pool and riffles) in migrant-resident streams relative to resident-only streams, resulting in few, if any, unused habitats. 4. These results are consistent with previously reported bioenergetic, morphological and stable isotope differences observed between anadromous and resident brook trout. 5. Our findings suggest that a link exists between juvenile habitat use, metabolic costs and life-history strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".