Temperature effects on swimming performance, energetics, and aerobic capacities of mature adult pink salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus gorbuscha</i>) compared with those of sockeye salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus nerka</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the prolonged swimming performance (Ucrit), metabolic rate (M-dotO2-minand M-dotO2-max), and oxygen cost of transport (COT) for upper Fraser River pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum, 1792); 53.5 ± 0.7 cm FL) and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum, 1792); 59.3 ± 0.8 cm FL) across a range of naturally occurring river temperatures using large Brett-type swim tunnel respirometers. Pink salmon were capable of similar relative critical swimming speeds (Ucrit) as sockeye salmon (2.25 FL·s–1), but sockeye salmon swam to a higher absolute Ucrit(125.9 cm·s–1) than pink salmon (116.4 cm·s–1) because of their larger size. Nevertheless, three individual pink salmon (Ucrit-max = 173.6 cm·s–1) swam faster than any sockeye salmon (Ucrit-max = 157.0 cm·s–1), indicating that pink salmon are far better swimmers than has been previously assumed. Metabolic rate increased exponentially with swimming speed in both species and was highest for pink salmon, but swimming efficiency (i.e., COT) did not differ between species at their optimal swimming speeds. The upper and lower limits of metabolism did not differ between species and both M-dotO2-minand M-dotO2-maxincreased exponentially with temperature, but aerobic costs of transport were independent of temperature in both species. Strong thermal dependence of both swimming performance and COT were expected but not demonstrated in either species. Overall, a higher degree of inter-individual variability in pink salmon swim performance and capacity suggests that this species might not be as locally adapted to particular river migration conditions as are sockeye 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".