Evaluating existing movement hypotheses in linear systems using larval stream salamanders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of their linear nature, streams provide a restrictive framework to understand the movement ecology of many animals. Stream movements have been characterized under two competing hypotheses. The colonization hypothesis dictates that small individuals experience passive drift, but concurrent, upstream movement by larger individuals replaces the loss of small individuals. Alternatively, the production hypothesis suggests that downstream movements are a consequence of limited resource availability. Previous research suggests that large larvae should move upstream and vice versa for small larvae, which should therefore be found downstream more often. We conducted a mark–recapture study of larval red salamanders ( Pseudotriton ruber (Sonnini de Manoncourt and Latreille, 1801)) to assess the validity of these hypotheses. We found that no larvae exhibited downstream movement (skew = 0.361, p = 0.019; biased upstream), and large larvae were the only size cohort to exhibit directional movement upstream (skew = 0.901, p = 0.035). Contrary to predictions under the colonization hypothesis, small larvae were found upstream more frequently than large larvae (N = 871, H = 16.29, df = 2, p < 0.001). Our results suggest that larval movements are related to abiotic stream conditions, and we conclude that neither hypothesis fully explains stream movement. In the absence of drift, new movement hypotheses are necessary to describe persistent upstream movement in streams. These hypotheses should consider individual causes of movement and the direction of movements that will improve the fitness of the organism.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".