Diel patterns of foraging and microhabitat use by sympatric rainbow trout and bull trout: implications for adaptive differentiation and instream flow assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salmonids make flexible and adaptive trade-offs between foraging efficiency and predation risk that result in variable patterns of diel activity and habitat use. However, the following remains unclear: (1) how patterns differ among salmonid species; and (2) how this affects the interpretation of habitat suitability models that inform instream flow management. We combined snorkel observations with experimental additions of cover to investigate how predation risk, cover, and bioenergetics affect diel activity and habitat use patterns by sympatric rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Skagit River, British Columbia, Canada. Both species foraged primarily at dusk, supporting the well-described trade-off between foraging efficiency and predation risk. However, only rainbow trout responded to cover additions, suggesting that risk tolerance and the nature of foraging-predation risk trade-offs differ between species. Diel shifts in activity and habitat use also substantially altered predictions of habitat suitability models, with potentially large consequences for flow management.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".