Resumption of Anadromy or Straying? Origins of Sockeye Salmon in the Elwha River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When barriers to migration are removed, anadromous fishes from other rivers may colonize newly accessible habitat or landlocked forms of the species may resume anadromy if conditions allow. For example, two large hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River, Washington, were removed between 2011 and 2014 to restore populations of Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. after a century of isolation. Immediately prior to and following dam removal (2010–2017), upstream‐migrating adult Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka were sampled, and DNA was extracted and compared with samples from the local Lake Sutherland population (above the lower dam’s former location) and a coastwide genetic baseline to determine the probable origin of each fish. Genetic analysis indicated that none of the 45 Sockeye Salmon sampled had originated from the local population or other populations nearby in the genetic baseline, and only a single fish originated from the abundant and proximate Fraser River populations. The strays reflected two different sources and processes: 22 were from the west coast of Vancouver Island (all in 2015, when these populations were very abundant and encountered conditions unfavorable for upstream migration in their natal system) and another 22 assigned to more northerly populations, mostly to riverine populations from the Stikine River. Test fishery samples collected in the Strait of Juan de Fuca contained very few fish with assignments similar to these northern rivers. It is not clear whether these individuals originated from the distant riverine populations or from a closer population not in the baseline that resembles them genetically. Taken together, the findings indicate that the genetic composition of any future population in the Elwha River may reflect signatures from diverse sources and subsequent selection in the new habitat.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".