Intra- and inter-specific competition and the reproductive success of sympatric Pacific salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual female Pacific salmon fight for breeding space with conspecific and heterospecific females. We evaluated the consequences of this competition on the reproductive success of sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), chum (Oncorhynchus keta), and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in the Weaver Creek spawning channel, British Columbia. We hypothesized that differences in body size, relative abundance, and spawning date would influence the magnitude of interspecific interactions. Reproductive success (survival rate of eggs to emigrating fry) of the most abundant species, sockeye, was strongly and inversely correlated with conspecific abundance but not with the abundance of the other, less abundant species. Chum reproductive success was inversely correlated with sockeye abundance but not with the abundance of the scarce and smaller pink. Surprisingly, pink reproductive success was not correlated with sockeye abundance and only marginally correlated with chum abundance despite the fact that pink are smaller and spawn earlier than sockeye. Thus, intra- and inter-specific competition can substantially affect salmon reproductive success, but the magnitude of the competitive effects may depend on relative abundance, size, spawning date, and microhabitat preferences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".