Effects of rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) on amphibians in productive recreational fishing lakes of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocking lakes with trout to enhance recreational fishing can negatively affect native aquatic species. Our objectives were (i) to compare presence, relative abundance, body size, and developmental stage of amphibians in lakes with and without rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in British Columbia’s southern interior, and (ii) to estimate the size of trout impact for application to amphibian conservation. Presence of long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), and Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) was not significantly different between lake types. In contrast, western toad (Bufo boreas) larvae presence and relative abundance were significantly higher in lakes with trout. Relative abundance of salamander larvae was significantly lower in lakes with trout, but hypothesis testing did not provide consistent evidence of significantly lower abundances of spotted frog and treefrog larvae. However, estimated ratios of relative abundance (impact) indicated that larvae of the salamander and two frogs were ≥65% less abundant in lakes with trout. Salamander larvae were significantly smaller in lakes with trout. Although amphibians may currently coexist with trout in our study region, trout stocking policy in British Columbia should consider amphibian conservation because the presence of trout is associated with lower amphibian abundance and body size in individual lakes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".