Competition between native and introduced salmonid fishes: cutthroat trout have lower growth rate in the presence of cutthroat–rainbow trout hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When nonnative species become established within new communities, competition may play a role in determining the persistence of ecologically similar native species. In western North America, many native cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii ) populations have been replaced by nonnative rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Superior competitive ability of rainbow trout and cutthroat–rainbow trout hybrids is often cited for this replacement; however, few studies have tested for mechanisms that might allow introduced rainbow trout to out-compete native trout species. Our previous work found individual-based differences in swimming and foraging ability among cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their hybrids. In this study, we tested for the presence and strength of competition between cohorts of cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and their reciprocal hybrids. We assayed the growth rate of juvenile cutthroat trout in allopatry versus cutthroat trout when sympatric with rainbow trout and each hybrid cross. After controlling for size and density of trout, cutthroat trout cohorts in stream channels that contained hybrid genotypes experienced lower growth than cutthroat trout in allopatry. Averaged across heterospecific treatments, cutthroat trout growth was also lower than that of cutthroat trout cohorts in allopatry. Our study suggests that juvenile cutthroat trout experience a growth disadvantage when competing against cutthroat–rainbow hybrids.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".