Pink salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus gorbuscha</i>) migratory energetics: response to migratory difficulty and comparisons with sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) are generally considered weak upriver migrants relative to sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), though this assertion is largely anecdotal. To assess energy-use patterns during migration, we collected pink salmon from two major Fraser River stocks (Weaver and Seton in British Columbia, Canada) in 1999 at three times and locations: (1) at the start of freshwater migration, (2) at the end of migration before spawning, and (3) immediately after spawning. We calculated the energy content of somatic and reproductive tissues, recorded several body measurements, and conducted both intraspecific (between pink stocks) and interspecific analyses with co-migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon collected during the same season. We found that between pink salmon stocks, there were no significant energetic or morphological differences either at river entry or upon arrival at spawning areas regardless of the level of migratory difficulty encountered. When compared with sockeye salmon, however, we found that pink salmon began upriver migration with significantly smaller somatic energy reserves but made up for this deficiency by minimizing absolute transport and activity costs, presumably by seeking out migratory paths of least resistance. This energetic efficiency comes at a cost to reproductive output: relative to sockeye salmon, pink salmon diverted less absolute energy to egg production, producing smaller ovaries and fewer eggs. We speculate that fundamental differences in behaviour shape the migratory energetic tactics employed by pink salmon.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".