Growth rate differences between resident native brook trout and non‐native brown trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between species and across season variation in growth was examined by tagging and recapturing individual brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and brown trout Salmo trutta across seasons in a small stream (West Brook, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Detailed information on body size and growth are presented to (1) test whether the two species differed in growth within seasons and (2) characterize the seasonal growth patterns for two age classes of each species. Growth differed between species in nearly half of the season‐ and age‐specific comparisons. When growth differed, non‐native brown trout grew faster than native brook trout in all but one comparison. Moreover, species differences were most pronounced when overall growth was high during the spring and early summer. These growth differences resulted in size asymmetries that were sustained over the duration of the study. A literature survey also indicated that non‐native salmonids typically grow faster than native salmonids when the two occur in sympatry. Taken together, these results suggest that differences in growth are not uncommon for coexisting native and non‐native salmonids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".