Long-term population dynamics and conservation risk of migratory bull trout in the upper Columbia River basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used redd count data from 88 bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the upper Columbia River basin to quantify local and regional patterns in population dynamics, including adult abundance, long-term trend, and population synchrony. We further used this information to assess conservation risk of metapopulations using eight population dynamic metrics associated with persistence. Local population abundances were generally low (<20 redds annually) and the majority of trends were either stable (85%) or declining (13%). Evidence of synchrony among populations was apparent but not related to fluvial distance between streams. Variability in annual abundances was 1.4–2.5 times lower in metapopulations than local populations, indicating moderate portfolio effects across the regional stock complex. Importantly, most metrics of conservation risk were uncorrelated with one another, emphasizing that multiple statistics describing population dynamics at various scales are needed for monitoring and assessing recovery. We provide a composite description of conservation risk based on local and regional population dynamics that can help inform conservation management decisions for bull trout and other freshwater fishes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".