Distribution and Migration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Derived from Coded Wire Tag Recoveries along the Continental Shelf of Western North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of ocean conditions on highly migratory species such as salmon are difficult to assess owing to the diversity of environments they encounter during their marine life. In this study, we reconstructed the initial ocean migration routes of juvenile Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha originating from Oregon to Southeast Alaska using coded wire tag recovery data from Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and National Marine Fisheries Service research surveys conducted between 1995 and 2006. Over this 12‐year period, 1,862 coded‐wire‐tagged juvenile Chinook salmon were recovered along the coasts of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska from March to November. Except for those from the Columbia River, most juvenile Chinook salmon remained within 100–200 km of their natal rivers until their second year at sea, irrespective of their freshwater history and adult run timing. Northward migration of most coastal stocks was initiated during their second or possibly third year at sea, whereas the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound stocks primarily migrated onto the continental shelf after their first year at sea. In contrast, Columbia River Chinook salmon generally undertook a rapid northward migration that varied among life histories and stocks. Columbia River spring Chinook salmon were recovered as far north as Prince William Sound, Alaska, during their first summer at sea, whereas very few Columbia River fall Chinook salmon were recovered north of Vancouver Island. In addition to northern migrants, a fraction of the Columbia River spring and fall Chinook salmon actively migrated south of the Columbia River. The stock‐specific initial ocean migration routes described in this study will aid in the identification of the appropriate spatial and temporal scales for assessing the processes regulating Chinook salmon recruitment in the marine environment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".