Geomagnetic imprinting predicts spatio-temporal variation in homing migration of pink and sockeye salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals navigate using a variety of sensory cues, but how each is weighted during different phases of movement (e.g. dispersal, foraging, homing) is controversial. Here, we examine the geomagnetic and olfactory imprinting hypotheses of natal homing with datasets that recorded variation in the migratory routes of sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) salmon returning from the Pacific Ocean to the Fraser River, British Columbia. Drift of the magnetic field (i.e. geomagnetic imprinting) uniquely accounted for 23.2% and 44.0% of the variation in migration routes for sockeye and pink salmon, respectively. Ocean circulation (i.e. olfactory imprinting) predicted 6.1% and 0.1% of the variation in sockeye and pink migration routes, respectively. Sea surface temperature (a variable influencing salmon distribution but not navigation, directly) accounted for 13.0% of the variation in sockeye migration but was unrelated to pink migration. These findings suggest that geomagnetic navigation plays an important role in long-distance homing in salmon and that consideration of navigation mechanisms can aid in the management of migratory fishes by better predicting movement patterns. Finally, given the diversity of animals that use the Earth's magnetic field for navigation, geomagnetic drift may provide a unifying explanation for spatio-temporal variation in the movement patterns of many 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".