Phenotypic Diversity of Lake Trout in Great Slave Lake: Differences in Morphology, Buoyancy, and Habitat Depth

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Ontogenetic niche shifts and resource partitioning of lake trout morphotypes (2009, methodology): “Depth partitioning is a broadly accepted difference among lake trout morphotypes; however, these results are primarily based on collections of large trout (Moore and Bronte 2001; Bronte et al. 2003; Zimmerman et al. 2006), and conclusions are biased toward the ecology of later life history stages.”
If Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus is ‘the most diverse vertebrate’, what is the lake charr Salvelinus namaycush? (2016, background): “Fish and Fisheries Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, F ISH and F ISHER IES lake charr morphs (Zimmerman et al. 2006; Zimmerman and Krueger 2009); Lake Mistassini, Quebec contains lean and humper morphs (Zimmerman et al. 2007); and Atlin Lake, Yukon, Canada contains two phenotypes that differed…”
An Ecosystem Perspective on Re-establishing Native Deepwater Fishes in the Laurentian Great Lakes (2009, background): “Opportunities to study these inputs could come from intact ecosystems outside the basin (e.g., Lake Nipigon, Great Slave Lake), recovering ecosystems within the basin (e.g., Lake Superior or Georgian Bay), or adaptive management decisions (Walters and Holling 1990) associated with ongoing reintroduc”