Effects of species, culture history, size and residency on relative competitive ability of salmonids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative competitive ability of juvenile farm and wild salmonids was investigated to provide insight into the potential effects of introduction of cultured salmon on wild Pacific salmonid (Oncorhynchus) species. Aquarium experiments involving equal contests (i.e. size matched, simultaneously introduced individuals) indicated that two wild coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch populations were competitively equal to a farm coho salmon population. In equal contests between farm Atlantic salmon Salmo salar (Mowi strain) and these wild coho salmon populations or coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki, Atlantic salmon were subordinate in all cases. When Atlantic salmon were given a residence advantage, however, they were competitively equal to both wild coho salmon populations, but remained subordinate to coastal cutthroat trout. When Atlantic salmon were given a 10–30% length advantage, they were competitively equal to one wild coho salmon population but remained subordinate to the other. In equal contests in semi‐natural stream channels, both wild coho and farm Atlantic salmon grew significantly more in the presence of the other species than when alone. It appears that coho salmon obtain additional food ration by out competing Atlantic salmon, whereas Atlantic salmon were stimulated to feed more in the presence of coho salmon competitors. These results suggest that wild coho salmon and cutthroat trout should out compete farm Atlantic salmon of a similar size in nature. As the relative competitive ability of Atlantic salmon improves when they have a size and residence advantage, should feral populations become established, they may exist on a more equal competitive footing owing to the long freshwater residence of Atlantic salmon.
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) | 0.002 | 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".