MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2056516129 · doi:10.1139/f2011-011

Do juvenile Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) use chemosensory cues to detect and avoid risky habitats in the wild?

2011· article· en· W2056516129 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jaewoo Kim, James W. A. Grant, G. E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersInstitute of Materials Research and EngineeringConcordia University
KeywordsSalmoALARMJuvenilePredatorBiologyHabitatPredationFisheryEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether juvenile Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) in the wild adjust their behaviour in response to chemical cues of predator activity during a 4-week period after emergence from gravel nests. In each of seven 75 m2 sites in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada, we established three contiguous sections differing in perceived predator activity by releasing stream water in control sections, conspecific alarm cues in risky sections, and nothing in buffer sections in both 2006 and 2007. As predicted, the density of young-of-the-year (YOY) salmon tended to decrease in alarm cue sections, while it increased in control and buffer sections. After the 2-week manipulation in 2006, we switched treatments so that buffer sections became alarm cue sections and alarm cue sections became buffer sections for an additional 2-week period. After the switch, the number of YOY increased least in the new alarm cue sections and most in control and new buffer sections. In contrast with YOY, the density of age 1+ parr was not affected by the experimental treatments. Our results suggest that YOY salmon can use chemical alarm cues to assess the predator activity of habitats in the wild.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→