MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053276661 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12185

Growth‐enhanced coho salmon invading other salmon species populations: effects on early survival and growth

2013· article· en· W2053276661 on OpenAlexaff
L. Fredrik Sundström, Wendy E. Vandersteen, Mare Lõhmus, Robert H. Devlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsOncorhynchusHatcheryBiologyTroutRainbow troutSalmonidaeFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryStockingAquacultureEcologyGenetically modified organismBrown troutFish hatcheryFish farmingZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The first genetically modified ( GM ) fish intended for human consumption has recently stimulated significant scientific discussion and regulatory scrutiny regarding food safety and environmental risks. Currently, no experiments with transgenic fish have been performed in nature, yet such data are needed to facilitate predictions of ecological consequences should engineered fish escape to the natural environment. To address this limitation, we conducted experiments under natural conditions but within a contained environment to assess the impact of invasion of growth‐enhanced GM coho salmon O ncorhynchus kisutch ( W albaum) on survival and growth of three naturally cohabitating fishes: C hinook salmon O . tshawytscha ( W albaum), steelhead trout O . mykiss ( W albaum) and conspecific wild‐type coho salmon. We found that the impact of stream‐reared GM coho salmon on invaded specimens was similar to the impact of non‐ GM coho salmon. However, GM fish significantly reduced survival and growth of the invaded populations if they were first allowed to grow larger under hatchery conditions before being released. Synthesis and applications . Our results show that the ecological impact of fish genetically modified ( GM ) for rapid growth on closely related fish species may not be high in stream environments, unless these fish are first reared under culture conditions where they are able to realize their genetic growth potential. As such, first generation escapes of GM fish into the natural environment should be a main concern in the short term, whereas later generations, which are more similar to naturally occurring genotypes, are expected to have significantly weaker effects but which could persist for longer periods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207