MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015168081 · doi:10.1002/ecy.3060

Relationships between Pacific salmon and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for ecosystem‐based management

2020· article· en· W3015168081 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica C. Walsh, Jane E. Pendray, Sean C. Godwin, Kyle A. Artelle, Holly K. Kindsvater, Rachel D. Field, Jennifer N. Harding, Noel R. Swain, John D. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaRaincoast Conservation FoundationSimon Fraser University
FundersHakai InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPacific Salmon Foundation
KeywordsEcosystemEcologyMarine ecosystemBiomass (ecology)Primary producersAbundance (ecology)Terrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental scienceFood webFreshwater ecosystemInvertebrateBiological dispersalAquatic ecosystemBiologyNutrientFisheryPhytoplankton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pacific salmon influence temperate terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems through the dispersal of marine‐derived nutrients and ecosystem engineering of stream beds when spawning. They also support large fisheries, particularly along the west coast of North America. We provide a comprehensive synthesis of relationships between the densities of Pacific salmon and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, summarize the direction, shape, and magnitude of these relationships, and identify possible ecosystem‐based management indicators and benchmarks. We found 31 studies that provided 172 relationships between salmon density (or salmon abundance) and species abundance, species diversity, food provisioning, individual growth, concentration of marine‐derived isotopes, nutrient enhancement, phenology, and several other ecological responses. The most common published relationship was between salmon density and marine‐derived isotopes (40%), whereas very few relationships quantified ecosystem‐level responses (5%). Only 13% of all relationships tended to reach an asymptote (i.e., a saturating response) as salmon densities increased. The number of salmon killed by bears and the change in biomass of different stream invertebrate taxa between spawning and nonspawning seasons were relationships that usually reached saturation. Approximately 46% of all relationships were best described with linear or curved nonasymptotic models, indicating a lack of saturation. In contrast, 41% of data sets showed no relationship with salmon density or abundance, including many of the relationships with stream invertebrate and biofilm biomass density, marine‐derived isotope concentrations, or vegetation density. Bears required the highest densities of salmon to reach their maximum observed food consumption (i.e., 9.2 kg/m 2 to reach the 90% threshold of the relationship’s asymptote), followed by freshwater fish abundance (90% threshold = 7.3 kg/m 2 of salmon). Although the effects of salmon density on ecosystems are highly varied, it appears that several of these relationships, such as bear food consumption, could be used to develop indicators and benchmarks for ecosystem‐based fisheries management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207