Otolith mineralogy affects otolith shape asymmetry: a comparison of hatchery and natural origin <scp>Coho salmon</scp> (<i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many aspects of natural and hatchery origin salmonid genetics, physiology, behaviour, anatomy and life histories have been compared due to the concerns about what effects domestication and hatchery rearing conditions have on fitness. Genetic and environmental stressors associated with hatchery rearing could cause greater developmental instability (DI), and therefore a higher degree of fluctuating asymmetry (FA) in various bilaterally paired characters, such as otoliths. Nonetheless, to appropriately infer the effects of DI on otolith asymmetry, otolith mineralogy must be accounted for. Vateritic otoliths differ substantially from aragonitic otoliths in terms of mass and shape and can artificially inflate any measurement of FA if not properly accounted for. In this study, measurements of otolith asymmetry between hatchery and natural origin Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch from three different river systems were compared to assess the overall differences in asymmetry when the calcium carbonate polymorph accounted for 59.3% of otoliths from hatchery origin O. kisutch was vateritic compared to 11.7% of otoliths from natural origin O. kisutch. Otolith mineralogy, rather than origin, was the most significant factor influencing the differences in asymmetry for each shape metric. When only aragonitic otoliths were compared, there was no difference in absolute asymmetry between hatchery and natural origin O. kisutch. The authors recommend other researchers to assess otolith mineralogy when conducting studies regarding otolith morphometrics and otolith FA.
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".