The extent of hybridization between bull trout (<i>Salvelinus confluentus</i>) and brook trout (<i>S. fontinalis</i>) across Alberta’s Eastern Slopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the extent of hybridization with non-native species is important for the conservation of native species. Bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus), a char native to Alberta, face population declines across their range and one risk may include hybridization with introduced brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis). The extent of hybridization throughout Alberta, however, is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to quantify bull × brook trout hybridization in three ways: (1) observed hybrid presence across Alberta, (2) post-F1 hybrid proportion, and (3) hybrid proportion relative to brook trout in well-sampled watersheds. Using two sets of diagnostic single nucleotide polymorphisms (1174 bull trout loci and 1499 brook trout loci), we identified 35 F1 and 7 post-F1 hybrids ( n = 42) across 10 Hydrologic Unit Code 8 watersheds. Results show hybridization throughout bull trout’s range; however, they provide little evidence of extensive introgression. Misidentification was low (2.1%), though 20 of 42 hybrids were misidentified, suggesting a higher misidentification rate (47.6%). This work improves understanding of hybridization of at-risk bull trout and informs management decisions, such as limiting brook trout where possible.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".