Distribution, Stock Composition and Timing, and Tagging Response of Wild Chinook Salmon Returning to a Large, Free‐Flowing River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returns to the Yukon River basin have declined dramatically since the late 1990s, and detailed information on the spawning distribution, stock structure, and stock timing is needed to better manage the run and facilitate conservation efforts. A total of 2,860 fish were radio‐tagged in the lower basin during 2002–2004 and tracked upriver. Fish traveled to spawning areas throughout the basin, ranging from several hundred to over 3,000 km from the tagging site. Similar distribution patterns were observed across years, suggesting that the major components of the run were identified. Daily and seasonal composition estimates were calculated for the component stocks. The run was dominated by two regional components comprising over 70% of the return. Substantially fewer fish returned to other areas, ranging from 2% to 9% of the return, but their collective contribution was appreciable. Most regional components consisted of several principal stocks and a number of small, spatially isolated populations. Regional and stock composition estimates were similar across years even though differences in run abundance were reported, suggesting that the differences in abundance were not related to regional or stock‐specific variability. Run timing was relatively compressed compared with that in rivers in the southern portion of the species’ range. Most stocks passed through the lower river over a 6‐week period, ranging in duration from 16 to 38 d. Run timing was similar for middle‐ and upper‐basin stocks, limiting the use of timing information for management. The lower‐basin stocks were primarily later‐run fish. Although differences were observed, there was general agreement between our composition and timing estimates and those from other assessment projects within the basin, suggesting that the telemetry‐based estimates provided a plausible approximation of the return. However, the short duration of the run, complex stock structure, and similar stock timing complicate management of Yukon River returns. Received March 5, 2014; accepted August 27, 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".