Seasonal Movement Patterns of Stream‐Dwelling Rainbow Trout in North‐Central British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Movement forms an important part of salmonid life histories, and although previous studies have largely concluded that the majority of stream‐dwelling salmonids are sedentary, the paradigm of restricted movement has been questioned by recent findings. We conducted a 3‐year study to examine the seasonal movement patterns of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in three small, lake‐headed streams situated in north‐central British Columbia and to determine whether movement was related to environmental conditions. Two of the three streams were subjected to streamside clear‐cut logging during the second year. The trout in our study streams generally remained sedentary during the summer, autumn, and winter seasons for a period of approximately 1–2 years before undertaking long‐range (>372–607‐m) movements during springtime. These springtime long‐range movements were most closely linked to stream discharge, as they generally ceased with the onset of summer low flows (<10–20 L/s), but they did not resume in the autumn despite increasing flows. Links between movement patterns and stream temperature were less clear, as long‐range movements occurred over a wide range (0–30°C) of temperatures. The predominant direction of long‐range movements was lakeward. All three streams supported relatively large populations of resident trout during the summer and autumn months; densities of 0.4–1.0 trout/m2 were primarily associated with age‐0 to age‐2 fish. Our data provide insights into how the movement patterns and life history strategies of stream‐dwelling rainbow trout are intertwined, as well as how the timing of sampling efforts may be an important factor when assessing whether stream‐dwelling fish are sedentary or mobile.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".