THE ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF LEPEOPHTHEIRUS SALMONIS(COPEPODA: CALIGIDAE) ON PINK (ONCORHYNCHUS GORBUSCHA) ANDCHUM (O. KETA) SALMON IN COASTAL BRITISH COLUMBIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In total, 23,750 specimens of the salmon louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, were collected from 3,907 juvenile pink and 3,941 chum salmon caught within the Broughton Archipelago during a 2-yr survey. The prevalence on pink salmon was significantly higher than on chum salmon in 2004 (62.3% and 58.6%, respectively) and in 2005 (26.4% and 23.1%, respectively). The mean abundance on chum salmon was significantly higher than on pink salmon in 2004 (7.0 +/- 0.3 and 2.8 +/- 0.2, respectively), whereas in 2005 the mean abundance did not differ between species (0.6 +/- 0.1 and 0.5 +/- 0.0, respectively). The mean intensity on chum salmon was significantly higher than on pink salmon in 2004 (12.0 +/- 0.4 and 4.5 +/- 0.2, respectively) and in 2005 (2.5 +/- 0.2 and 1.7 +/- 0.1, respectively). The prevalence, intensity, and abundance of L. salmonis were significantly higher on salmon belonging to both host species in 2004 compared with 2005. In both years, a majority of pink and chum salmon had 2 or fewer lice. In general, a decline in abundance of L. salmonis over the 3 collection periods in each year coincided with an increased percentage of motile developmental stages. The abundance was lowest on fish collected from zones in which the seawater surface salinity was also lowest. Seawater surface temperature was higher and salinity was lower in 2004 compared with 2005. The spatial and temporal trends in the abundance of L. salmonis in relation to host size, infestation rates, and seawater salinity and temperature, evident in both years, must be considered in future studies assessing the role of farmed salmon in the epizootiology of this parasite on juvenile salmon in this area.
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".