Seasonal behaviours of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) in the Kitimat River watershed: observations and influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal cutthroat trout (O.clarkii clarkii, CCT) are arguably the most poorly understood species of salmonid and little is known of their seasonal patterns of movement, particularly in British Columbia.My study was conducted to assess the overwintering and spawning behaviours of migratory CCT in the Kitimat River watershed and to evaluate how behaviours were influenced by a suite of biotic and abiotic metrics.Radio transmitters were surgically implanted into mature CCT in the late summer and fall of 2012 (Year 1; n = 41) and 2013 (Year 2; n = 68).In the late fall, CCT aggregated within deep, slow moving pools.During the winter, CCT either remained stationary within a single overwintering habitat, or were mobile, moving among 2 to 5 habitats.Spawning occurred in first to third order tributaries throughout the watershed, from April 14 to May 15.Spawning mortality was high, and 57% of radio tagged CCT did not survive spawning.I used an information-theoretic model to assess the influence of mean daily mainstem water temperature and discharge, photoperiod, thermal experience (accumulated thermal units [ATU]), distance travelled to spawn, migration type (mobile or stationary), fork length and sex on the timing that CCT moved out of overwintering habitats and into spawning tributaries.The analysis demonstrated the inherent seasonality of when spawning migrations are initiated and suggested that photoperiod combined with fork length and distance to spawn was best able to predict when CCT moved out of overwintering habitats.The spawning analysis demonstrated that when CCT arrive in spawning tributaries was most strongly influenced by combinations of thermal experience, photoperiod and migration type.My study has provided a comprehensive review of the overwintering and spawning behaviours of migratory CCT at a spatial and temporal scale that has not been completed previously.Behaviours associated with life history events, however, exhibited tremendous variability which has reinforced the need for local, watershed specific research when considering management strategies for the species.
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 | 0.000 | 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".