Intracohort and intercohort spatial density dependence in juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increased mobility with age can be expected for many organisms, which will reduce the potential for spatial density dependence. Here we quantify the extent of spatial density dependence for two juvenile age classes of brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) that differ in their dispersal abilities. As predicted, spatial variation in intracohort density had a strong effect on the performance of underyearlings, but not on yearlings. However, rather surprisingly, local underyearling density influenced the energetics of the older age class to the same extent as their own. Thus, yearlings do not appear to prioritize growth rate per se as a cue in movement decisions. The spatial patterns of densities and performance are consistent with older fish distributing themselves primarily according to preferred abiotic variables that also influence energetics. Such decisions would remove any relation between local density of their own age class and growth performance. However, because of competitive effects from the patchily distributed younger age class, spatial homogenization of competition intensities appears to be constrained. Variation in yearling body mass also increased with density of their own age class, indicating that even though the average effect of intracohort competition was absent, the individual response was asymmetric.
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) | 0.001 | 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".