A review of the hybridisation potential of brown trout with particular reference to invaded environments, and a case study from Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybridisation is a complex process that begins with mating. Females have more to lose with each hybrid fertilisation than males, so they should avoid it. Even if females choose con‐specific males as preferred mates, they often cannot control which additional males release sperm during spawning. Polyandry is ubiquitous and may result in hetero‐specific sperm competition between males of different species. In such cases, cryptic female choice (the ability to bias paternity towards certain males under sperm competition) is the last line of defence to prevent hybridisation of her eggs and is highly adaptive if it enables con‐specific sperm preference. Such seems to be the case with the hybridisation of Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) and brown trout ( S. trutta ) in their native Europe. Under hetero‐specific sperm competition, hybrid fertilisations in these fish are reported to be reduced via ovarian fluid‐mediated cryptic female choice. It is not known, however, whether the strength of this mechanism is dependent on reinforcement and thus, the historical sympatry/allopatry of hybridising populations. Brown trout are one of the world's worst invasive species. Ecological impacts arise through competition with other species (e.g. Galaxids in the southern hemisphere, Oncorhynchus in western North America). Eastern North America contains native salmonids that evolved in the absence of brown trout but have gametes that are compatible. The 140 ‐year‐old brown trout invasion of Newfoundland is ground zero to study these potential interactions. Their relatively low spread rate across the island may be the result of inherent poor productivity, but data suggest it could also be a function of hybridisation with native Atlantic salmon and brook char ( Salvelinus fontinalis ).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".