The influence of the Columbia River plume on the survival of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): a numerical exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are smolt-to-adult return rates (SARs) for wild steelhead (i.e., sea-run rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss ) and wild Snake River spring–summer Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) related to changes in the Columbia River plume at the time that juvenile migrants enter the ocean? We used three-dimensional (3D) numerical models of the baroclinic circulation in the Columbia River estuary–plume–shelf system to simulate within-season variation in plume size and location, comparing the results with SARs for each day that juvenile salmon entered the ocean for 1999–2003. We found that steelhead benefited from the plume environment at a narrow window of time around their ocean entry. However, when large-scale ocean conditions turned unfavorable, the contribution of local plume conditions to the overall variability in steelhead survival became not significant. A similar evaluation revealed that the plume did not affect survival of Chinook salmon, at least at the fine scale of variability considered. The differential response between the two species is consistent with observed and previously reported behavioral characteristics they exhibit. We speculate that steelhead mainly use the plume to move quickly away from coastal habitats and the predation pressures associated with this environment, for a more direct migration than Chinook salmon to ocean habitats in the Gulf of Alaska.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".