Recruitment dynamics of juvenile salmonids: Comparisons among populations and with classic case studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding recruitment, the process by which individuals are added to a population or to a fishery, is critical for understanding population dynamics and facilitating sustainable fisheries management. Important variation in recruitment dynamics is observed among populations, wherein some populations exhibit asymptotic productivity and others exhibit overcompensation (i.e., compensatory density‐dependence in recruitment). Our ability to understand this interpopulation variability in recruitment patterns is limited by a poor understanding of the underlying mechanisms, such as the complex interactions between density dependence, recruitment, and environment. Furthermore, most studies on recruitment are conducted using an observational design with long time series that are seldom replicated across populations in an experimentally controlled fashion. Without proper replication, extrapolations between populations are tenuous, and the underlying environmental trends are challenging to quantify. To address these issues, we conducted a field experiment manipulating stocking densities of juvenile brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis in three wild populations to show that these neighboring populations—which exhibit divergent patterns of density dependence due to environmental conditions—also have important differences in recruitment dynamics. Testing against four stock‐recruitment models (density independent, linear, Beverton‐Holt, and Ricker), populations exhibited ~twofold variation in asymptotic productivity, with no overcompensation following a Beverton‐Holt model. Although environmental variables (e.g., temperature, pH, depth, substrate) correlated with population differences in recruitment, they did not improve the predictive power in individual populations. Comparing our patterns of recruitment with classic salmonid case studies revealed that despite differences in the shape and parameters of the curves (i.e., Ricker vs. Beverton‐Holt), a maximum stocking density of about five YOY fish/m2 emerged. Higher densities resulted in very marginal increases in recruitment (Beverton‐Holt) or reduced recruitment due to overcompensation (Ricker).
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".