Morphological consequences of hybridization between farm and wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar under both wild and experimental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The escape of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar from aquaculture has been identified as a significant threat to the persistence and stability of wild salmon populations. Yet the magnitude of phenotypic impacts due to hybridization remains largely unresolved. We evaluated the phenotypic consequences of hybridization using geometric morphometrics both under natural conditions in the wild and in the laboratory using common garden experiments. Juvenile Atlantic salmon field-collected in 2015 and 2016 from 18 southern Newfoundland rivers were classified as pure wild, pure farm, or F1 hybrids using genetic assignment. Overall size and shape differences between wild and farm, and wild and F1 hybrid individuals were small, largely size related, and present between pure farm and other crosses. Laboratory-reared pure wild, pure farm, and F1 hybrid salmon were grown in tank and semi-natural conditions. Wild fish were significantly larger than both farm and hybrid salmon at first feeding; these size differences remained at 80 d post first feeding under semi-natural conditions, but all crosses were the same size in tank conditions, and there were no differences between pure farm and hybrid individuals under either condition. Significant shape differences were present among all pairwise comparisons under tank conditions, and in semi-natural conditions, pure wild individuals differed significantly from pure farm and hybrid individuals. Our results suggest phenotypic differences observed under laboratory conditions between wild and farm×wild hybrid individuals may not be appreciable in the wild, and that significant genetic changes may occur in wild populations experiencing hybridization in the absence of obvious large phenotypic changes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".