Morphological and swimming stamina differences between Yellowstone cutthroat trout (<i>Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri</i>), rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>), and their hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that body shape differences between Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and their hybrids may influence swimming ability and thus play an important role in the invasion of nonnative rainbow trout and hybrid trout into native cutthroat trout populations. We reared Yellowstone cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and reciprocal hybrid crosses in a common environment and conducted sustained swimming trials in order to test for genetically based morphological and swimming stamina differences. Linear and geometric morphometric analyses identified differences in body shape, with cutthroat trout having slender bodies and small caudal peduncles and rainbow trout having deep bodies and long caudal peduncles. Hybrid crosses were morphologically intermediate to the parental genotypes, with a considerable maternal effect. Consistent with morphological differences, cutthroat trout had the lowest sustained swimming velocity and rainbow trout had the highest sustained swimming velocity. Sustained swimming ability of hybrid genotypes was not different from that of rainbow trout. Our results suggest that introduced rainbow trout and cutthroat-rainbow trout hybrids potentially out-compete native Yellowstone cutthroat trout through higher sustained swimming ability.
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 | 0.000 | 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".