Previously spawned Atlantic salmon ascend a large subarctic river earlier than their maiden counterparts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spawning migration timing of maiden Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and previous spawners was analysed in the catches in 1989–2004 in the large subarctic River Teno in the northernmost parts of Finland and Norway. The hypothesis was that the migration timing of previous spawners and their maiden counterparts is similar, with the migration timing similar between sexes. In most cases, however, previous spawners were observed to migrate into the River Teno and its tributaries earlier than their maiden counterparts. The difference in run timing was especially evident between maiden one‐sea‐winter (1SW) Atlantic salmon and the corresponding group of previous spawners [1S1, 1 year at sea (1) followed by first spawning (S) and reconditioning period of 1 year (1) at sea and second spawning run] for both sexes in the River Teno and in its two tributaries. The same was also evident between 2SW maiden and 2S1 previous spawning female Atlantic salmon in the River Teno. Females showed earlier spawning migration than males both in previous spawners and maiden Atlantic salmon. Different maiden sea‐age classes also showed differences in run timing as multi‐sea‐winter fish (2–4SW) ascended earlier than 1SW fish but the timing of 1S1 and 2S1 previous spawning females coincided. The results suggest that run timing of Atlantic salmon may not be strictly genetically fixed as previous spawners ascend earlier than they did on their first spawning migration as maiden fish, and indicated that the closeness of the reconditioning area of postspawners to the river of origin resulted in an early ascent. Run timing of different sea‐age groups has major management implications if the populations are heavily exploited with numerous fishing methods in different periods of the fishing season, as in the River Teno system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".