Estimating Seasonal Movements of Chinook Salmon in Lake Huron from Efficiency Analysis of Coded Wire Tag Recoveries in Recreational Fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The decline of hatchery-reared Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha stocks in Lakes Huron and Michigan during the 1980s prompted mass-tagging programs to investigate reproduction, poststocking survival, and movements. In Lake Huron, millions of smolts implanted with coded wire tags (CWTs) were released in Michigan waters and recovered from charter and noncharter fisheries, surveys, and weirs. Using generalized linear models (GLMs), we investigated Chinook salmon seasonal movements based on the spatial and temporal distributions of recoveries by fishing trips in U.S. recreational fisheries and recovery efficiency. We used models incorporating area, month, year, and recovery source; creel-clerk and “headhunter” (CWT collection specialist) samples; and charter captain reports. We implemented models for recoveries regardless of release area and from one particular area. All model predictors and interactions between month and area were significant. The variation in recovery levels among recovery sources was larger than temporal or spatial variation. Headhunters were 7 times more efficient than captains in recovering CWTs from charter-boat catch and 11 times more efficient than clerks in recovering CWTs from non-charter-boat catch; this was due to the higher catches experienced in charter than in noncharter trips and to different recovery program goals. The spatial and temporal distribution of GLM-standardized recovery levels suggested that Chinook salmon released along the western coast of Lake Huron moved near shore during early spring and north during summer, returning mostly to nearby stocking areas in summer and fall. To complement our GLM analysis, we evaluated the distributions of CWT salmon released and recovered in U.S. and Canadian waters by all sources. Data supported previous conclusions on longitudinal movements and indicated that in spring fish moved from eastern locations to near shore in western Lake Huron then back to overwinter locations in autumn. These movement patterns coincided with seasonal prey species concentrations and favorable temperatures. The implications of our results for salmon fisheries management and the design of future tagging studies are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".