Are trout populations affected by reach-scale stream slope?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reach-scale stream slope and the structure of associated physical habitats are thought to affect trout populations, yet previous studies confound the effect of stream slope with other factors that influence trout populations. We isolated the effect of stream slope on trout populations by sampling reaches immediately upstream and downstream of 23 marked changes in stream slope on 18 streams across Wyoming and Idaho. No effect of stream slope on areal trout density was observed, but when trout density was expressed volumetrically to control for differences in channel cross sections among reaches in different slope classes, the highest densities of trout occurred in medium-slope reaches, intermediate densities occurred in high-slope reaches, and the lowest densities occurred in low-slope reaches. The relative abundance of large trout was reciprocal to the pattern in volumetric trout density. Trout biomass and species composition were not affected by stream slope. Our results suggest that an assumption made by many fish-habitat models, that populations are affected by the structure of physical habitats, is at times untenable for trout populations in Rocky Mountain streams and is contingent upon the spatial scale of investigation and the population metric(s) used to describe populations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".