Negative growth in body mass of trout and salmon in a small stream network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In species inhabiting stressful environments, some individuals experience negative growth in body mass during their lives, potentially influencing survival, reproduction, populations, and ecosystems. Using data from a long-term (1997–2015) study of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout ( Salmo trutta), and juvenile Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar) in Massachusetts, USA, we analyzed the frequency, causes, and consequences of seasonal mass loss. Negative growth occurred in 14.8% of observations (3573 instances), with the highest prevalence during summer (June–September). Species differed markedly: 42.5% of juvenile Atlantic salmon, 24.9% of brook trout, but only 7.7% of brown trout exhibited negative growth. The likelihood of mass loss increased with size, age, and low stream flows, particularly in summer. Brook trout in the small or isolated tributaries exhibited less summer mass loss than those in the larger streams. Other factors, including temperature and population density, had minimal or inconsistent effects. Individuals experiencing negative growth, especially brook trout in summer and autumn, were less likely to be re-encountered. As we observed no association of mass loss with movement, this suggests a potential survival cost of negative body mass growth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".