Rates of straying by hatchery-produced Pacific salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus</i>spp.) and steelhead (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) differ among species, life history types, and populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we ask whether straying differs among species, life history types, and populations of adult hatchery-produced Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Columbia River basin. Previous estimates of straying have been confounded by various factors influencing the probability of individuals returning to non-natal sites (e.g., off-station releases), whereas analyses undertaken here of nearly a quarter million coded-wire tag recoveries control for these factors. Our results revealed large and generally consistent differences in the propensity to stray among species, life history types within species, and populations. Paired releases indicated that (i) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) strayed more (mean population range 0.11%–34.6%) than coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (0.08%–0.94%); (ii) ocean-type Chinook (5.2%–18.6%) strayed more than stream-type Chinook (0.11%–10%); and Chinook salmon (0.90%–54.9%) strayed more than steelhead (0.30%–2.3%). We conclude these patterns are largely the result of species-specific behavioral and endocrine factors during the juvenile life stages, but analyses also suggest that environmental factors can influence straying during the adult upstream migration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".