MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144867999 · doi:10.1139/f01-025

Behavioural and heart rate responses to predation risk in wild and domesticated Atlantic salmon

2001· article· en· W2144867999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jörgen I. Johnsson, Johan Höjesjö, Ian Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsDomesticationPredationSalmoCaptivityBiologyPredatorPopulationZoologyEcologySelection (genetic algorithm)FisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial culture may relax the selective pressures from predators, thereby altering behavioural and heart rate responses to predation risk. Culture may also impose new selection that adapts fish to confinement. Predictions from these hypotheses were tested by comparing seventh-generation farm Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with wild Atlantic salmon from the principal founder population of the farm strain. Wild age 1+ salmon had higher standard heart rates and showed a more pronounced flight and heart rate response to a simulated predator attack than did farmed salmon. However, wild fish were closer to the model predator at attack, which may have accentuated these differences. Both strains habituated to the threat, showing less response to the second attack than to the first. In contrast with age 1+ fish, wild age 2+ salmon had lower standard heart rates than farmed fish. Moreover, in age 2+ salmon, domestication effects were less clear and the response to predation threat considerably weaker, suggesting that environmental effects of culture override genetic effects as time in captivity increases. Domestication selection may thus alter reaction norms of farmed animals over environmental gradients and time. This should be considered when attempting to predict the consequences of release or escape of domesticated animals in the wild.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations193
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207