Can Anglers Influence the Abundance of Native and Nonnative Salmonids in a Stream from the Canadian Rocky Mountains?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of nonnative fishes throughout North America is a major concern for fisheries managers. In this paper, we evaluate the efficacy of selective harvest in reducing nonnative brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and restoring native cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki and bull trout S. confluentus populations in a small stream in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. From 1998 through 2000, groups of anglers have been involved in an organized program to selectively harvest brook trout from Quirk Creek, Alberta. Annual population estimates conducted by electrofishing indicate that selective harvest has had little effect on the brook trout population. Bayesian estimates of species catchability (i.e., proportion of vulnerable population caught per unit of angling effort) differed significantly between native and nonnative species, the catchability of native species being 2.5-fold greater than that for nonnatives. Using population models, we show that the lower catchability of brook trout coupled with their fast growth and early maturity make them resilient to angling exploitation. Higher catchability, slower growth, and later maturity of the native species make them extremely sensitive to overexploitation. Furthermore, the increased angling effort associated with a brook trout suppression program may be accompanied by sufficient incidental mortalities of native species as to prevent their recovery or lead to further declines. We conclude that the use of selective harvest to reduce nonnative brook trout populations in western North America requires further study before being accepted as an effective method.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".