Competitive effects between rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon in natural and artificial streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Competition with non‐native species may impede the restoration of native species, but differences in competitive abilities among intraspecific native populations may make some populations more suitable for reintroduction than others. Here, juvenile Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) from two allopatric populations (LaHave and Sebago) being used for reintroduction into Lake Ontario were placed into two natural stream sites differing in the presence of ecologically similar rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). We assessed the effects of competition in the natural streams on fitness‐related traits and habitat use of the Atlantic salmon. We then compared these effects to those observed in artificial streams from a previous study. Atlantic salmon in natural streams had reduced fitness‐related traits that were associated with suboptimal microhabitats in the presence of rainbow trout, but utilised optimal microhabitats in their absence. In the presence of rainbow trout, the two Atlantic salmon populations exhibited comparable recapture proportions to each other, but the individuals from the Sebago population had better performance (body size and condition) than those from the LaHave population. Responses of both Atlantic salmon populations to competition with rainbow trout were generally similar in both direction and magnitude when compared to results from the artificial stream study. The combined results suggest that native species restoration efforts should be focused on candidate populations that are ecologically suitable to reintroduction environments, as well as on suitable habitats that do not contain exotic competitors. Moreover, this study highlights the value of controlled experiments in artificial environments for predicting fitness‐related performance in natural environments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".