Effects of food and cover on the growth, survival, and movement of cutthroat trout (<i>Oncorhynchus clarki</i>) in coastal streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the extent to which stream-resident coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are limited by food and cover, we manipulated these two factors in a 2 × 2 design using enclosures containing 1-year-old trout in two streams. During summer, fish receiving food additions experienced an average growth rate of 1.73% body mass·day1 compared with a rate of 0.022 for unfed fish (ambient food supply only), indicating marked food limitation. The addition of cover decreased mortality by approximately 50% in one stream, but survival was high both with and without cover in the other. There was no interaction of food and cover on growth or survival. Emigration rates were low and were not strongly affected by either factor. We also used markrecapture modeling to examine whether the 48% greater mass of fed fish at the end of the experiment improved survival over winter. Fed fish were still 46% larger than unfed fish by the next spring, but overwinter survival was not explained by body size. Our results show that, during summer, food availability can limit trout growth, and cover, by mediating predation, can limit survival.
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".