Differences in antipredator behaviour between wild and hatchery-reared juvenile Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) under seminatural conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Captive rearing may elicit experiential or genetically based changes to salmonid antipredator behaviour, which may reduce survival of hatchery-reared fishes when they are released into the wild. Nevertheless, few studies have compared the behaviour between local wild-caught and local hatchery-reared fish (two generations or less), and none have done so under natural conditions. We conducted a seminatural field study comparing the antipredator behaviour of wild-caught, F1 (offspring of wild-caught adults) with that of F2 (second generation) hatchery-reared young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar , from the same source population) in response to standardized chemical alarm cues. Wild-caught salmon exhibited the strongest antipredator response to a standardized threat (conspecific alarm cues), while F2 salmon exhibited the weakest response. F1 salmon were intermediate in their behavioural response. The observed differences between wild-caught and F1 salmon suggests that differential experience may play a significant role in predator avoidance behaviours. Furthermore, the observed differences between F1 and F2 salmon suggests that even one full generation of hatchery rearing may be sufficient to select for maladaptive responses to predators under natural conditions. Given the controversy regarding the effectiveness of hatchery programs for conservation use, the results of this study suggest that minimizing hatchery time may reduce the behavioural differences between wild and hatchery-reared fishes.
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".