Sexual and seasonal dimorphism in adult adfluvial bull trout (<i>Salvelinus confluentus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dimorphism in fishes may be obvious during the reproductive period and less clear during the nonreproductive periods. Despite being difficult to discern during the nonreproductive period, sex-related differences in body condition and shape can yield important insights into a species’ behaviour and ecology. The purpose of this study was to test hypotheses about body condition and shape variation related to sex and season (nonreproductive and reproductive periods) in a population of adult adfluvial bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley, 1859)), which is a poorly understood and imperiled species across much of its range. Geometric morphometric samples were collected by angling in the spring and late summer in a reservoir in British Columbia. Principal components analysis identified two principal components (PC) that were related to body condition and that varied according to season and sex. Spring-caught females were in better body condition than spring-caught males. There was a significant sex × season interaction on body condition such that late-summer males were not different from late-summer females. Spawning bull trout exhibited a decline in body condition during the summer season. An additional PC that described head size was found to vary significantly between sexes; however, an assignment test showed that it failed to reliably distinguish between the sexes. We hypothesized that the ecology of these animals, including sex-specific behaviour, is responsible for sexual and seasonal differences in bull trout body condition and morphology. This study offers new insight into the ecology of bull trout and shows that shape data for fishes can be obtained nonlethally, which is particularly important for species that are imperiled.
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 | 0.001 | 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".