The Effect of Short‐Duration Seawater Exposure and Acoustic Tag Implantation on the Swimming Performance and Physiology of Presmolt Juvenile Coho Salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To assess the potential impact of “tag effect” on seaward‐migrating Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, presmolt juveniles were surgically implanted with acoustic transmitters followed by exposure to freshwater (FW, 0‰ salinity) or seawater (SW; 30‰ salinity) for 24 h and then subjected to repeated critical swimming speed (Ucrit) trials. Three different experimental tag‐treatment groups were established: control (no surgery), sham (surgery but no tag), and tagged (surgically implanted tag), with a range of 9–12 fish in each group. Tagged fish were implanted with Vemco V6 dummy acoustic transmitters (DAT: 17.0 mm long × 6 mm diameter, 1.0 g in air). After completion of two Ucrit trials, separated by a recovery period, all fish were euthanized and sampled to determine hematocrit (Hct) and plasma osmolality. In the FW exposure, the mean Ucrit of the control treatment was significantly higher than that of the tagged treatment (P = 0.04). No significant differences in swimming performance were observed among the SW treatment groups, and no significant differences were observed between Ucrit trials (Ucrit1 and Ucrit2) for any of the experimental treatments groups. Seawater exposure did, however, result in slightly reduced, but not statistically different, swimming speeds and concomitantly higher plasma osmolalities (P < 0.001) compared with FW exposure. Predictions made with data from this study suggest that sample sizes (per tag treatment) of n = 25 are sufficient to detect a 15–20% difference in Ucrit sample means with 80% power. Collectively, these data do not provide substantial statistical evidence that the swimming performance of juvenile Coho Salmon tagged with surgically implanted acoustic transmitters is significantly reduced compared with untagged fish.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".