Bioenergetic assessment of habitat quality for stream-dwelling cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) with implications for climate change and nutrient supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a bioenergetic model to determine if cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri ) abundance was related to net energy intake rates (NEI) and the proportion of suitable habitat and to evaluate potential changes in habitat quality due to climate change and stream fertilization efforts. We conducted monthly sampling of cutthroat trout, invertebrate drift, and physical habitat features in pool and riffle habitats. Fish in this study selected foraging positions that enabled them to maximize NEI, and most fish were capable of sustaining high growth rates from July to September. Mean NEI and the proportion of suitable habitat at sites were greater in pools relative to riffle habitats and declined from July to October, primarily due to a decline in temperature over the four months. Cutthroat trout biomass was significantly related to NEI and the proportion of suitable habitat at a site. Model simulations indicated that climate change might reduce habitat quality for small-bodied trout, while extending the growing season for larger fish. Increased food abundance provided only marginal changes to model outcomes, whereas reductions in food significantly reduced habitat quality.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".