MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2188297232

Overwintering Ability of Juvenile Ocean-type Chinook Salmon: Effect of Water Temperature and Food Deprivation on Growth, Energetics, and Survival

2013· article· en· W2188297232 sur OpenAlexaff
David G. Stormer, Francis Juanes

Notice bibliographique

Revue145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueFish Ecology and Management Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOverwinteringJuvenileAnimal scienceMorningChinook windHatcheryEveningFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBiologyFood intakeEnvironmental scienceEcologyOncorhynchusBotany
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Juvenile sub-yearling Chinook salmon were obtained from a local hatchery and transported in an aerated live well by a University of Victoria (UVic) aquatic transport vehicle to the UVic Aquatic Research Facility. At the beginning of the experimental period, eleven fish were transferred into one of sixteen experimental 240-L aquaria. The experimental aquaria were assigned to treatments with one of two temperatures (6.5°C and 10.5° ±0.5°C) simulating the 1940-1970 winter average (hereafter termed cool) sea surface temperature (SST) recorded from the SOG, and a 50-year projected average winter (hereafter termed warm) SST, respectively. Fish were also subjected to three feeding regimes (fed once daily to satiation continuously throughout the entire study period, food deprived for two weeks from the beginning of the experimental period, and food deprived for four weeks from the beginning of the experimental period) to create the factorial design (temperature x feeding regime) with single replicates per treatment combination. The six-week experimental period was divided into three phases consisting of two weeks per phase. During phase one, both of the experimental treatments were food deprived. During phase two, feeding was restored to the two-week food deprived treatment while food deprivation continued in the four-week food deprived treatment. During phase three, feeding was restored to the four-week food deprived treatment. The control groups were fed to satiation once daily during all three phases. All treatment tanks were monitored at least three times per day (morning, afternoon, and evening). During each monitoring event, water quality and quantity, and treatment parameters were maintained and all tanks were checked for mortalities. Survival was examined graphically for each treatment level using cumulative survival curves. Growth was estimated from randomly sampling six fish for length (TL) and weight (g) from each tank at the beginning of each twoweek study phase. Respiration rate (number of buccal cycles per minute) was recorded three times per week from direct observation of one focal fish per tank. Activity was measured three times per week as the proportion of fish in each tank that crossed the vertical and/or horizontal midlines over a one-minute direct observation period. Aggression was measured three times per week as the number of nips, charges, and chases in each tank over a one minute direct observation period. Preliminary results showed that survival of the juvenile Chinook salmon was high throughout the study period (> 85%). Overall survival was similar between warm (89%) and cool (85%) temperature treatments irrespective of feeding regime. The warm temperature/continuously fed and cool temperature/two-week food deprived treatments experienced 100% survival (Fig. 1) throughout the experimental period. Fish in the cool water temperature/continuously fed treatment suffered the highest mortality (40%) by the end of phase three. The majority of the fish in this treatment died during the initial three weeks of the study and no mortality was observed during phase three (Fig. 1). Survival of fish in the warm water treatments declined the greatest in those deprived of food for two weeks.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,188
Écart entre enseignants0,184 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries SocietyMême sujetFish Ecology and Management StudiesTravaux en français237 207