MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125551707 · doi:10.1890/02-5395

POPULATION ECOLOGY OF AN INVASION: EFFECTS OF BROOK TROUT ON NATIVE CUTTHROAT TROUT

2004· article· en· W2125551707 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land Management
KeywordsTroutSalvelinusFontinalisOncorhynchusBiologyEcologyPopulationFisheryElectrofishingSalmonidaeRainbow troutAbundance (ecology)Fish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasion by nonnative brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ) often results in replacement of cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) in the inland western United States, but the underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We conducted a four‐year removal experiment to test for population‐level mechanisms (i.e., changes in recruitment, survival, emigration, and immigration) promoting invasion success of brook trout and causing decline of native Colorado River cutthroat trout ( O. c. pleuriticus ). We chose 700–1200 m segments of four small mountain streams where brook trout had recently invaded cutthroat trout populations, two each at mid elevation (2500–2700 m) and high elevation (3150–3250 m), and annually removed brook trout from two streams (treatments), but not the other two (controls). We used depletion electrofishing, two‐way fish weirs, and mark–recapture methods to estimate abundance, movement, and survival of trout. At mid elevation, age‐0 and age‐1 cutthroat trout survived at 13 times and two times higher rates on average, respectively, where brook trout were removed. At high‐elevation sites, recruitment of cutthroat trout failed despite brook trout removals, apparently because of cold water temperatures. In contrast, age‐2 and older cutthroat trout survived at similar rates, whether brook trout were removed or not and regardless of elevation. Summer movement by cutthroat trout was unaffected by removal of brook trout. We conclude that brook trout depress cutthroat trout populations at mid elevation through age‐specific biotic interactions that reduce juvenile cutthroat trout survival, whereas populations restricted to high‐elevation sites by invasion continue to decline because an abiotic factor (low temperature) causes recruitment failure. In comparison, brook trout survived at the same or higher rates than same‐aged cutthroat trout. High immigration by brook trout recolonized depleted segments, and may help sustain invasions in sink habitats where environmental conditions limit recruitment. In streams similar to those we studied, eradication of brook trout is likely necessary to eliminate the threat to native cutthroat trout, but selective removal regimes that capture a high percentage of the brook trout population for least three consecutive years, repeated periodically, may permit cutthroat trout populations to persist with brook trout. To identify underlying mechanisms responsible for successful invasion by mobile, age‐structured vertebrates such as stream fishes, experiments conducted at realistic spatial and temporal scales and including multiple age classes will be required.

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.

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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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