Fin erosion and injuries in relation to adult recapture rates in cultured smolts of Atlantic salmon and brown trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implications of fin erosion and other injuries that are directly or indirectly caused by the hatchery environment have long been debated. Fin condition has been regarded as an indicator of welfare in fish farms, but until now there has been little evidence that eroded fins have negative effects on survival after stocking in the wild. Based on over 40 years of tagging and recapture data, we show that Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with dorsal fin erosion and brown trout (Salmo trutta) with any kind of injuries had lower recapture rates than fish without injuries. In salmon, precocious mature males had a lower probability of being recaptured compared with immature fish. Data from a hatchery monitoring program indicated that the degree of fin erosion on the dorsal fin in salmon and on the caudal fin in trout was correlated with the number of other injuries. We conclude that fin erosion and other injuries may reduce the probability of survival after release. All actions in the hatcheries to reduce fin erosion and other injuries will most likely be positive for the long-term outcome of the stocking programs.
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".