MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mating patterns and determinants of individual reproductive success in brown trout (Salmo trutta) revealed by parentage analysis of an entire stream living population

2010· article· en· W2097219398 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitar Serbezov, Louis Bernatchez, Esben Moland Olsen, Leif Asbjørn Vøllestad

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsBiologyBrown troutSalmoMatingZoologyPopulationReproductive successTroutFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive success and its determinants are difficult to infer for wild populations of species with no parental care where behavioural observations are difficult or impossible. In this study, we characterized the breeding system and provide estimates of individual reproductive success under natural conditions for an exhaustively sampled stream-resident brown trout (Salmo trutta) population. We inferred parentage using a full probability Bayesian model that combines genetic (microsatellite) with phenotypic data. By augmenting the potential parents file with inferred parental genotypes from sib-ship analysis in cases where large families had unsampled parents, we could make more precise inference on variance of family size. We observed both polygamous and monogamous matings and large reproductive skew for both sexes, particularly in males. Correspondingly, we found evidence for sexual selection on body size for both sexes. We show that the mating system of brown trout has the potential to be very flexible and we conjecture that environmental uncertainty could be driving the evolution and perhaps select for the maintenance of plasticity of the mating system in this species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207