Stocked trout do not significantly affect wood frog populations in boreal foothills lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocking salmonids into lakes can have negative consequences for some ecosystem components, including amphibians. In the boreal foothills of Alberta, Canada, we compared populations of wood frog ( Lithobates sylvaticus ) at lakes with (n = 5) and without (n = 6) stocked trout over 3 years; all 11 lakes also supported native populations of forage fishes. Abundance and size of adult and young-of-year (YOY) frogs did not differ significantly between stocked and unstocked lakes. We also compared the wood frog population from a twelfth, fishless lake with populations from the 11 fish-bearing lakes (with or without trout); abundance and size of adults and YOY were greater, and YOY emerged earlier in the absence of fish. Based on patterns compiled from a literature review of effects of stocked trout on anuran amphibians, we suggest that characteristics of our study systems, including the presence of native fish, the length of the anuran larval period, lake trophic status, and the existence of complex, littoral habitats, contributed to the lack of major impacts of stocked trout on wood frog populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".