Survival and life history characteristics among wild and hatchery coho salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>) returns: how do unfed fry differ from smolt releases?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survival and life history characteristics were evaluated for a coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ) integrated hatchery program using two stocking strategies. Fish were released as unfed fry or smolts and returned as adults, and then molecular analysis was employed to pedigree the entire population. We showed that mean adult survival of individuals released as unfed fry was less than that of individuals released as smolts (0.03% vs. 2.39%). The relative reproductive success (RRS) of the fry release strategy to wild spawning was significantly greater for one of two cohorts, whereas the smolt release strategy to wild RRS was significantly greater for both cohorts. Fish released as smolts were significantly smaller upon returning as adults than either those released as unfed fry or wild returns. Mean run timing was also significantly biased towards an earlier run time for hatchery-released fish when compared with the wild component. The incidence of jacking (males maturing at age 2) was greater among fish stocked as smolts than for fish stocked as fry. Differences in survival, RRS, and life history appeared to be the result of hatchery practices and indicated that a fry stocking strategy produced fish more similar to the wild component of the population than to that of fish released as smolts.
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) | 0.000 | 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".