Interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids in streams: differences in biology and evidence for competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competition between hatchery-reared and wild salmonids in streams has frequently been described as an important negative ecological interaction, but differences in behavior, physiology, and morphology that potentially affect competitive ability have been studied more than direct tests of competition. We review the differences reported, designs appropriate for testing different hypotheses about competition, and tests of competition reported in the literature. Many studies have provided circumstantial evidence for competition, but the effects of competition were confounded with other variables. Most direct experiments of competition used additive designs that compared treatments in which hatchery fish were introduced into habitats containing wild fish with controls without hatchery fish. These studies are appropriate for quantifying the effects of hatchery fish at specific combinations of fish densities and stream carrying capacity. However, they do not measure the relative competitive ability of hatchery versus wild fish because the competitive ability of hatchery fish is confounded with the increased density that they cause. We are aware of only two published studies that used substitutive experimental designs in which density was held equal among treatments, thereby testing for differences in competitive ability. Additional substitutive experiments will help managers to better understand the ecological risk of stocking hatchery fish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".