Overwintering and migration behaviour of post‐spawned <scp>Atlantic</scp> salmon <scp><i>Salmo salar</i></scp> in a large hydropower‐regulated river and reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tracking 47 post‐spawned adult Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. in a hydropower‐regulated river through autumn, winter and spring revealed that winter survival was 56% and 75% in two study years, respectively, with higher mortality of males than females (50% vs. 33% and 100% vs. 13%, respectively). Some kelts (n = 7) displayed nondirected movements that were interpreted as a reconditioning period for an average of 9–17 days prior to directed downstream movements indicating the initiation of migration. Survival after the initiation of migration in spring was 83% and 94% to the hydropower dam in the first and second study years, and decreased to 60 and 63%, respectively, after dam passage. There were no further losses in the downriver reach in the second year, with the first year having a cumulative survival estimate of 53% to the river mouth. Kelts approached the dam when the spillway gates were available as a passage option most of the time (64%–75%), but some kelts arrived at the dam or had not yet passed when spillways were closed (n = 6) and the only remaining passage option was restricted to the turbines. However, all but one kelt that must have passed via turbine were successful in reaching the river mouth. Migratory delay presumably due to searching behaviour caused by low water flow was estimated at approximately 6 days as migration rates were significantly slower in the reservoir (median ± s.e. 8.5 ± 2.5 km day−1) than up‐ (29.7 ± 5.0 km day−1) or downriver (22.1 ± 3.1 km day−1). The proportion of time (median 30%) that kelts spent swimming upstream (searching behaviour) in the reservoir was a significant variable for migration success.
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".