Contrasting patterns of territoriality and foraging mode in two stream-dwelling salmonids, Arctic char (<i>Salvelinus alpinus</i>) and brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Territoriality and foraging behaviour play major roles in determining the abundance and distribution of mobile animals. To date, territorial behaviour of young-of-the-year (YOY) salmonids is typically described for sit-and-wait individuals that defend territories from one foraging station, but rarely for more mobile fish. We examined the territorial behaviour and foraging mode of 31 YOY Arctic char ( Salvelinus alpinus ) and 30 YOY brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) in relation to ecological factors in six rivers in northern Iceland. Arctic char used larger territories than brown trout, corresponding with high and low mobility prior to attacking prey, respectively. Within species, more mobile fish also used larger territories. Territory size increased with body size and declined with increased food abundance as predicted, but surprisingly increased with rising intruder pressure. Finally, Arctic char territories overlapped more and were less exclusively defended than brown trout territories. This study shows that territories of mobile individuals may not always pertain to the same rules as single central-place territories and highlights that territorial behaviour, and its role in population regulation, may vary between salmonid species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".