Reproductive behavior and relative reproductive success of natural- and hatchery-origin Hood Canal summer chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of the relative fitness of hatchery- and natural-origin salmon can help determine the value of hatchery stocks in contributing to recovery efforts. This study compared the adult to fry reproductive success of natural-origin summer chum salmon ( Oncorhynchus keta ) with that of first- to third-generation hatchery-origin salmon in an experiment that included four replicate breeding groups. Hatchery- and natural-origin chum salmon exhibited similar reproductive success. Hatchery- and natural-origin males obtained similar access to nesting females, and females of both types exhibited similar breeding behaviors and durations. Male body size was positively correlated with access to nesting females and reproductive success. The estimates of relative reproductive success (hatchery/natural = 0.83) in this study were similar to those in other studies of other anadromous salmonids in which the hatchery population was founded from the local natural population and much higher than those in studies that evaluated the lifetime relative reproductive success of nonlocal hatchery populations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".