Behavioural effects in juvenile brown trout in response to parental angling selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fishing that selectively captures and removes fish based on their behavioural decisions is predicted to induce evolution towards timid fish stocks. Thus, offspring behaviour should associate with parental vulnerability to angling. We examined phenotypic behavioural variation in juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta) whose parents, representing a hatchery and a wild stock, were experimentally grouped based on their relative vulnerability to angling. The F1 offspring from highly vulnerable (HV) and low vulnerable (LV) parents were reared in common garden conditions together with a crossbred wild × hatchery reference group and tested for boldness during their first summer. Wild LV juveniles were the shyest of all fish, but not distinctly shyer than wild HV juveniles. Contradictorily, hatchery LV juveniles expressed bolder behaviour than hatchery HV juveniles. We show that angling selection may have transgenerational behavioural effects independently of size variation, but changes in behaviour can manifest differently in fish from different backgrounds. Our results partly support the earlier findings of increased angling-induced timidity in wild populations and thus call for management focus on behavioural effects of fishing.
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 | 0.000 | 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".