Impacts of trout predation on fitness of sympatric sticklebacks and their hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predation may be a significant factor in the divergence of sympatric species although its role has been largely overlooked. This study examines the consequences of predation on the fitness of a pair of lacustrine stickleback species (Gasterosteus aculeatus complex) and their F(1) hybrids. Benthic sticklebacks are found in the littoral zone of lakes associated with vegetation and bare sediments, whereas limnetic sticklebacks spend most of their lives in the pelagic zone. The cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) is a major predator of sticklebacks and the only other fish species native to lakes containing both benthic and limnetic species. In pond experiments we found that the addition of these predators primarily impacted the survival of limnetics. By contrast, benthic survival was unaffected by trout addition. The result was that relative survival of benthics and limnetics was reversed in the presence of trout. The presence of trout had no effect on the rank order of parent species growth rates, with benthics always growing faster than limnetics. F(1) hybrids survived poorly relative to benthics and limnetics and their growth rates were intermediate regardless of treatment. The results implicate predation by trout in the divergence of the species but not through increased vulnerability of F(1) hybrids.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".