Marine habitat use and feeding ecology of introduced anadromous brown trout at the colonization front of the sub-Antarctic Kerguelen archipelago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1954, brown trout were introduced to the Kerguelen archipelago (49°S, 70°E), a pristine, sub-Antarctic environment previously devoid of native freshwater fishes. Trout began spreading rapidly via coastal waters to colonize adjacent watersheds, however, recent and unexpectedly the spread has slowed. To better understand the ecology of the brown trout here, and why their expansion has slowed, we documented the marine habitat use, foraging ecology, and environmental conditions experienced over one year by 50 acoustically tagged individuals at the colonization front. Trout mainly utilized the marine habitat proximate to their tagging site, ranging no further than 7 km and not entering any uncolonized watersheds. Nutritional indicators showed that trout were in good condition at the time of tagging. Stomach contents and isotope signatures in muscle of additional trout revealed a diet of amphipods (68%), fish (23%), isopods (6%), and zooplankton (6%). The small migration distances observed, presence of suitable habitat, and rich local foraging opportunities suggest that trout can achieve their resource needs close to their home rivers. This may explain why the expansion of brown trout at Kerguelen has slowed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".