ArticleOecologia2025
Integrated analysis of marked and count data to characterize fine-scale stream fish movement.
Article in Oecologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immigration and emigration are key demographic processes of animal population dynamics. However, we have limited knowledge on how fine-scale movement varies over space and time. We developed a Bayesian integrated population model using individual mark-recapture and count data to characterize fine-scale movement of stream fish at 20-m resolution in a 740-m study area every two months for 28 months. Our study targeted small-bodied fish, for which imperfect capture was accounted for (bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus, creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus and mottled sculpin Cottus bairdii). Based on data from 2021 individuals across all species, we found that proportions of immigrants in 20-m sections averaged 30-42% among the study species, but they varied over space and time. Creek chub immigrants increased during warmer intervals when individuals grew more and transitioned between body size classes, suggesting that immigration was due to ontogenetic habitat shifts. There was a weak pattern across the species that individuals were more likely to leave 20-m sections when flow was higher. Water-column species (bluehead chub and creek chub) were more likely to immigrate into and stay in deeper sections with more pool area. Across all species and occasions, number of immigrants to stream sections did not decrease with number of individuals that survived and stayed in the same sections. Thus, the habitat did not appear saturated, and our data provided no evidence that intra-specific interactions affected fine-scale movement at our fish densities. In conclusion, high turnover rates characterized fish movement among stream sections and their variation was associated with temporal and spatial shifts in abiotic conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39869162What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.