Survival of Puget Sound chinook salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i>) in response to climate-induced competition with pink salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus gorbuscha</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested for competition between pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) originating from rivers in the Puget Sound area using coded-wire-tagged subyearling hatchery chinook salmon. Following a 2-year life cycle, many juvenile pink salmon enter Puget Sound in even-numbered years, whereas few migrate during odd-numbered years. During 19841997, juvenile chinook salmon released during even-numbered years experienced 59% lower survival than those released during odd-numbered years, a trend consistent among 13 chinook salmon stocks. Lower even-numbered-year survival of chinook salmon was associated with reduced first-year growth and survival and delayed maturation. In contrast, chinook salmon released into coastal streams, where few pink salmon occur, did not exhibit an alternating-year pattern of survival, suggesting that the interaction occurred within Puget Sound and the lower Strait of Georgia. Unexpectedly, the survival pattern of Puget Sound chinook salmon was reversed prior to the 19821983 El Niño: chinook salmon survival was higher when they migrated with juvenile pink salmon during 19721983. We hypothesize that chinook salmon survival changed as a result of a shift from predation- to competition-based mortality in response to recent declines in predator and prey abundances and increases in pink salmon abundance. Alternating-year mortality accounted for most of the 50% decline in marine survival of chinook salmon between 19721983 and 19841997.
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".