Harbour seals target juvenile salmon of conservation concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowing the species and life stages of prey that predators consume is important for understanding the impacts that predation may have on prey populations, but traditional methods for determining diets often cannot provide sufficient detail. We combined data from two methods of scat analysis (DNA metabarcoding and morphological prey ID) to quantify the species and life stages of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) consumed by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, Canada, where juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon survival is poor. Harbour seals primarily consumed adult salmon of lesser conservation concern in the fall (August–November): chum (Oncorhynchus keta: 18.4%), pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha: 12.6%), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka: 7.4%), Chinook (7.1%), and coho (1.8%). However, the opposite species trend occurred during the spring when seals preferred juvenile salmon of greater conservation concern (April–July): coho (2.9%), Chinook (2.9%), sockeye (2.5%), pink (1.4%), and chum (0.8%) — percentages that can equate to many individuals consumed. Our data suggest that harbour seals select juveniles of salmon species that out-migrate at ages >1 year and provide evidence of a potential causal relationship between harbour seal predation and juvenile salmon survival trends.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".