Predation on stocked Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) fry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied predatorprey interactions between juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and trout in three Massachusetts, U.S.A., streams and in artificial streams. We sampled stomach contents of age-1+ and older salmon and trout (Salvelinus fontinalis, Salmo trutta) following salmon fry stocking in the spring of 1997 and 1998. Between 4.3 and 48.6% of the stocked fry were consumed within the first 2 days after stocking, and total fry mortality from predation varied from 4.3 to 60.7%. No significant differences were found between stomach weights of predators ( without fry weight) that consumed fry and those that did not. Artificial stream experiments testing effects of habitat complexity and predator species on predator consumption rates revealed that consumption rates were not different between brook (S. fontinalis) and brown (S. trutta) trout (p = 0.59). Predation rate tended to decrease as the percentage of riffle habitat increased but the decrease was not significant (p = 0.22). Our results indicate that predation on stocked Atlantic salmon fry can be substantial (up to 60%), appears to be short lived (2 days), and is not related in a simple way to abiotic and biotic factors.
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 | 0.000 | 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".