Relative importance of chinook salmon abundance on resident killer whale population growth and viability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two distinct populations of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the north‐eastern Pacific Ocean have been listed in Canada and the USA as being of conservation concern. One of the major threats recognized for these two populations is nutritional stress associated with prey abundance levels and availability. The predominance of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the summer diets of both killer whale populations has been shown by recent studies, and correlations between indices of chinook salmon abundance and resident killer whale (RKW) vital rates have generated hypotheses about the potential for chinook salmon abundance to limit RKW population dynamics. This study merges statistical inference derived from linkages between RKW vital rates (survival probability and fecundity rates) and chinook salmon abundance with demographic perturbation analysis and population viability analysis to address some of the pressing questions that have recently engaged the efforts of scientists and managers interested in: (1) the role of chinook salmon abundance in the population dynamics of RKW; and (2) how RKW population viability is expected to respond to changes in chinook mortality owing to harvest. Numerous interactions between the abundance of chinook salmon aggregates and RKW vital rates were found and deemed to result from predator–prey dynamics. However, the results of this present analysis also indicated that the effects of these interactions on RKW population growth and viability are relatively small and/or uncertain and in need of further research. Other factors (genetic, environmental and/or anthropogenic) could be at play limiting RKW population growth and possibly masking and confounding the detection of stronger interactions between RKW vital rates and chinook salmon abundance. Given the current state of information, it is highly uncertain whether the allocation of chinook salmon resources for RKW would be an effective management action in RKW recovery plans. © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Ecohydrology © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".