Interspecific competition reduces the performance of Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>): implications for restoration programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competition from non-native salmonids is potentially impairing efforts to restore Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to parts of their historical range. In three separate meta-analyses, we collected 104 effect sizes from 25 published papers to quantify the effect of both native and non-native salmonids on the performance (i.e., behaviour, habitat use, growth and survival) of Atlantic salmon. The presence of other species had negative effects on the performance of Atlantic salmon; in particular, non-native species and brown trout (Salmo trutta), whether native or non-native, had the most negative effects. Contrary to our predictions, the negative effects of other species were not exacerbated in laboratory compared to field studies and did not increase with total salmonid abundance or the relative body size of the competitors. However, most studies in our analyses were conducted under laboratory conditions and at densities much higher than found in nature. Thus, a realistic assessment of the potential success of restoration programs when interspecific competitors are present should include more studies conducted under natural conditions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".