Thiamine Content of Eggs and Lengths of Coho Salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>) in Relation to Abundance of Alewife (<i>Alosa pseudoharengus</i>) in Eastern Lake Ontario, 2003 to 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early mortality syndrome in fry of Great Lakes salmonines is linked to reduced levels of thiamine in eggs, which reflects maternal consumption of forage fishes such as alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) that contain thiaminase, an enzyme that destroys thiamine. We assessed annual variations in abundance and condition of alewives and thiamine status of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Lake Ontario. We analyzed total thiamine in eggs of 20 coho salmon collected annually between 2003 and 2006 at the Salmon River Hatchery on the Salmon River, New York. Alewife abundance was assessed annually in southern and eastern Lake Ontario with bottom trawls during late April and early May. Mean thlamine concentration in eggs varied annually, with those collected in 2003 (2.5 nmol/g) being significantly higher than those collected in 2004 to 2006 (1.5 to 1.7 nmol/g). Although we did not test survival of fry, if reported threshold levels of thiamine for preventing mortality of Lake Michigan coho salmon fry apply, then many or most Lake Ontario coho salmon produced fry were likely to incur thiamine-deficiency mortality, especially during years 2004 to 2006. Comparison to indices of annual abundance of alewife in Lake Ontario with thiamine concentration in coho salmon eggs failed to show any significant correlations (P > 0.05). However, total length of female spawning coho salmon was positively correlated (P < 0.05) with increasing condition and estimated energy content of adult alewives in the previous spring. These results suggest that growth of coho salmon in Lake Ontario was first limited by energy intake, whereas the amount of thiamine provided by alewives was sufficient for growth (in length) but not for producing thiamine-adequate eggs.
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".