English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: Much has been written about introduced rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) interbreeding and outcompeting cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarkii). However, the specific mechanisms by which rainbow troutand their hybrids outcompete cutthroat trout have not been thoroughly explored,and the published data is limited to lotic ecosystems. Materials and Methods:Samples of rainbow trout and cutthroat trout were obtained from a lenticecosystem by angling. The total length and weight of each fish was measured andthe relative weight of each fish was computed (Anderson R.O., Neumann R.M.1996. Length, Weight, and Associated Structural Indices, Pp. 447-481. In:Murphy B.E. and Willis D.W. (eds.) Fisheries Techniques, second edition.American Fisheries Society.), along with the mean and uncertainty in the meanfor each species. Data from an independent source (K.D. Carlander, 1969.Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume One, Iowa University Press,Ames.) was also used to generate mean weight-length curves, as well as 25th and75th percentile curves for each species to allow further comparison. Results:The mean relative weight of the rainbow trout was 72.5 (+/- 2.1); whereas, themean relative weight of the cutthroat trout was 101.0 (+/- 4.9). The rainbowtrout were thin; 80% weighed below the 25th percentile. The cutthroat troutwere plump; 86% weighed above the 75th percentile, and 29% were above theheaviest recorded specimens at a given length in the Carlander (1969) data set.Conclusion: This data casts doubt on the hypothesis that rainbow trout arestrong food competitors with cutthroat trout in lentic ecosystems. On thecontrary, in the lake under study, the cutthroat trout seem to be outcompetingrainbow trout for the available food.

Plump Cutthroat Trout and Thin Rainbow Trout in a Lentic Ecosystem