Breeding success of male brook trout (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>) in the wild
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competition for females generally results in some males adopting alternative reproductive tactics to acquire matings. For fish, the ecological and evolutionary consequences of these tactics are not well understood because of an inability to link directly the interactions of individuals on the breeding grounds with genetic data. This study combines behavioural observations with genetic estimates of male reproductive success within an intensively studied wild population of lacustrine brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Male brook trout exhibit a conditional reproductive strategy with small males adopting a peripheral position to that of larger dominant males in their proximity to spawning females. Parentage analysis of eggs collected from wild redds confirmed the reproductive success of individual males. Males relegated to peripheral positions during spawning participated frequently in spawning events, but in most cases the first male to spawn was the sole contributor, and no more than two males contributed successfully to a single brood. While behavioural observations of salmonines suggests that reproduction is partitioned among males in a manner dependent upon body size and proximity to spawning females, the genetic evidence from this study suggests a more limited distribution of reproductive success in the field. The genetic contributions of male brook trout are highly skewed towards larger males for this population. A review of the salmonine literature suggests little difference in individual reproductive success for males exhibiting size-related tactics within a conditional mating strategy vs. precocial maturation. Collectively, these genetic studies provide new insights on the evolution of alternative life histories among salmonines.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".