MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966867257 · doi:10.1080/00028487.2014.1001041

Does Catch‐and‐Release Angling Alter the Behavior and Fate of Adult Atlantic Salmon During Upriver Migration?

2015· article· en· W1966867257 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert J. Lennox, Ingebrigt Uglem, Steven J. Cooke, Tor F. Næsje, Frederick G. Whoriskey, Torgeir B. Havn, Eva Marita Ulvan, Øyvind Solem, Eva B. Thorstad

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsOcean Tracking NetworkDalhousie UniversityCarleton University
FundersInstitute of Engineering Research, Seoul National UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorsk institutt for naturforskningMiljødirektoratetNorges ForskningsrådCanada Research ChairsCarleton University
KeywordsSalmoCatch and releaseFisheryFishingRecreational fishingFish <Actinopterygii>Fish migrationGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To reproduce, Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar return to freshwater rivers and migrate upriver to spawning areas. This migration is the basis for recreational fisheries, which for conservation reasons are increasingly characterized by catch‐and‐release angling. The effectiveness of catch and release for Atlantic Salmon conservation is contingent on the ability of individuals to recover from angling, resume migration, and reach spawning grounds at appropriate times. We monitored 27 caught and released Atlantic Salmon in River Gaula in 2013, a prominent and relatively pristine Norwegian river, by affixing external radio transmitters to them. Those fish were compared with a control group of 33 individuals caught and radio‐tagged at sea in bag nets before river entry. Whereas none of the control fish died during the study period, there were three mortalities among the caught‐and‐released fish (11%; significant difference). All mortalities were qualitatively associated with poor angler care, emphasizing the responsibility of anglers in practicing effective catch and release of Atlantic Salmon. Both control and caught and released Atlantic Salmon spent similar time resting below and in transiting a large natural barrier to migration, an 80‐m gorge. The angled and released Atlantic Salmon were distributed in similar locations throughout the river during the spawning season compared with control fish, but those caught and released later in the season appeared to migrate shorter total distances than control fish. Among the caught and released Atlantic Salmon, 17% were recaptured by anglers, which was similar to the rate of recapture of the control fish (21%). Ultimately, individual and population fitness was not likely to be significantly compromised as a result of catch and release because individuals were recorded in spawning areas at appropriate times. Catch and release can therefore be considered a tenable strategy for balancing the costs and benefits associated with the recreational fishery. Received September 26, 2014; accepted December 16, 2014

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207