Effects of Emergence Time and Early Social Rearing Environment on Behaviour of Atlantic Salmon: Consequences for Juvenile Fitness and Smolt Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent individual differences in behaviour have been well documented in a variety of animal taxa, but surprisingly little is known about the fitness and life-history consequences of such individual variation. In wild salmonids, the timing of fry emergence from gravel spawning nests has been suggested to be coupled with individual behavioural traits. Here, we further investigate the link between timing of spawning nest emergence and behaviour of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), test effects of social rearing environment on behavioural traits in fish with different emergence times, and assess whether behavioural traits measured in the laboratory predict growth, survival, and migration status in the wild. Atlantic salmon fry were sorted with respect to emergence time from artificial spawning nest into three groups: early, intermediate, and late. These emergence groups were hatchery-reared separately or in co-culture for four months to test effects of social rearing environment on behavioural traits. Twenty fish from each of the six treatment groups were then subjected to three individual-based behavioural tests: basal locomotor activity, boldness, and escape response. Following behavioural characterization, the fish were released into a near-natural experimental stream. Results showed differences in escape behaviour between emergence groups in a net restraining test, but the social rearing environment did not affect individual behavioural expression. Emergence time and social environment had no significant effects on survival, growth, and migration status in the stream, although migration propensity was 1.4 to 1.9 times higher for early emerging individuals that were reared separately. In addition, despite individuals showing considerable variation in behaviour across treatment groups, this was not translated into differences in growth, survival, and migration status. Hence, our study adds to the view that fitness (i.e., growth and survival) and life-history predictions from laboratory measures of behaviour should be made with caution and ideally tested in nature.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".