Differences in risks and consequences of salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer), infestation on sympatric populations of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and Arctic charr within northern fjords
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bjørn, P-A., Finstad, B., Kristoffersen, R., Rikardsen, A. H., and McKinley, R. S. 2007. Differences in risks and consequences of salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer), infestation on sympatric populations of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and Arctic charr within northern fjords. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 386–393. Differences in salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestation on sympatric populations of fjord-migrating, Atlantic salmon post-smolts (Salmo salar), brown trout (Salmo trutta) (sea trout), and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) were studied in three fjords with fish-farming activity in northern Norway during the period June–August 2000. Atlantic salmon post-smolts were only captured in the fjords during late June and early July, and probably left them subsequently. No fish were infested with salmon lice. In contrast, brown trout and Arctic charr had similar infection patterns during their sampling periods, with very low prevalence and mean infection intensity during June (0–21% and 0–6 lice per fish, respectively), slightly increasing in July (8–70% and 6–12 lice per fish, respectively), and peaking in August (80–88% and 19–27 lice per fish, respectively). The chalimus stages dominated during June and July, with a few pre-adult and adult stages observed in July, and all stages were found frequently during August. The observations indicate that Atlantic salmon may have a mismatch between the time of louse infestation and their post-smolt fjord migration in northern fjords. In contrast, brown trout and Arctic charr feed within the fjords throughout summer and have a higher risk of harmful infestation in years with suitable environmental conditions for salmon louse development, especially in fish‐farming areas. Arctic charr usually spend the shortest time at sea of the three species, and the salmon lice may not have time to develop to the adult stage on this species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".