The genetic legacy of more than a century of stocking trout: a case study in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human introductions can obscure the diversity and distribution of native biota; hybridization with and replacement by introduced congeners is a primary conservation threat, particularly in salmonids. Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) are an important component of biodiversity in the American West, and all recognized subspecies are targets for state and federal conservation efforts. Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) in northern Colorado is a microcosm of trout introductions that happened worldwide. We used a combination of extensive stocking records and molecular genetic data to ask whether native trout populations persist despite stocking and whether patterns in the distribution of cutthroat trout clades could be explained by source and intensity of stocking. Nearly 15 million cutthroat trout were stocked into RMNP from a mosaic of sources in the 20th century. A single lineage of cutthroat trout was historically native to each side of the Continental Divide in RMNP, but we detected at least five divergent clades of cutthroat trout in 34 localities on both sides of the Divide. The distribution of lineages was predicted by stocking pressure and source but not by which lineage was historically native. The future of mixed and non-native cutthroat trout populations in RMNP poses a substantial conservation challenge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".