Chinook salmon outmigration survival in wet and dry years in California’s Sacramento River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outmigration survival of acoustic-tagged, hatchery-origin, late-fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts from the Sacramento River was estimated for 5 years (2007–2011) using a receiver array spanning the entire outmigration corridor, from the upper river, through the estuary, and into the coastal ocean. The first 4 years of releases occurred during below-average river flows, while the fifth year (2011) occurred during above-average flows. In 2011, overall outmigration survival was two to five times higher than survival in the other 4 years. Regional survival estimates indicate that most of the improved survival seen in 2011 occurred in the riverine reaches of the outmigration corridor, while survival in the brackish portions of the estuary did not significantly differ among the 5 years. For the 4 low-flow years combined, survival rate in the river was lower in the less anthropogenically modified upper reaches; however, across all regions, survival rate was lowest in the brackish portion of the estuary. Even in the high-flow year, outmigration survival was substantially lower than yearling Chinook salmon populations in other large rivers. Potential drivers of these patterns are discussed, including channelization, water flow, and predation. Finally, management strategies are suggested to best exploit survival advantages described in this study.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".