Interannual variability in life-stage specific survival and life history diversity of coho salmon in a coastal Oregon basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We quantified the population dynamics and life history diversity of seven brood years of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) using a life-cycle approach. Four life history patterns, composed of fry, fry–nomad, parr, and yearling migrants indicated the importance of connectivity and access to a full range of freshwater and estuarine rearing environments through the year. Survival of each life history type varied annually with the yearling migrants contributing an average of 70% to the spawners in all but one return year. Fifty-eight percent of the spawners of the 2013 return year had an estuarine rearing strategy, primarily parr migrants that overwintered in the estuary. Fry migrants, thought to be surplus production, were consistently observed in the estuary and represented in the returning spawners. The annual contribution of alternative rearing strategies to the spawners may support the resilience and viability of the population. We recommend that life cycle models of coho salmon account for the contribution of estuary migrants to the productivity and persistence of coho salmon in support of management and restoration of populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".