MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379766785 · doi:10.1002/aqc.3957

Dynamics of juvenile salmon and forage fishes in nearshore kelp forests

2023· article· en· W4379766785 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Shaffer, Justin H. Gross, Morgan Black, Amelia Kalagher, Francis Juanes

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersWestern Washington UniversityUniversity of VictoriaEastern Washington UniversityWashington State University
KeywordsOncorhynchusKelp forestChinook windFisheryKelpPacific herringForage fishHabitatForageSmeltNursery habitatEcologyBiologyHerringClupeaFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract North‐east Pacific juvenile salmon and forage fishes, including the endangered salmon species Chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ), coho ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ), chum ( Oncorhynchus keta ), and pink ( Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ), and the forage fishes species of Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasi ), surf smelt ( Hypomesus pretiosus ), and sand lance ( Ammodytes hexapterus ), utilize kelp environments. Many details of the kelp forest ecosystem function for these fishes are lacking. Kelp forests, salmon, and forage fishes are declining precipitously as the global climate shifts and developments along coastal shorelines expand. It is therefore essential to understand kelp forest function for these species. Analysis of 7 years of snorkelling survey videos indicates that both forage fishes and salmon use kelp forests throughout the outmigration season, and that their interactions occur in small and large groups, primarily along the outer edge of kelp beds. Over the course of outmigration, juvenile Chinook and coho salmon encounter sand lance first, followed by smelt and herring. The majority of interactions are intermingling, in which a subset proceed to predation, primarily on herring. It is important to develop and implement specific fishery and habitat conservation measures to preserve and restore these functions. Long‐term research has shown that intact, conserved nearshore habitats function better ecologically than restored habitats, and individual kelp forests can function differently for forage fishes and salmon. Therefore, conservation plans should be developed to conserve wild kelp forests which are documented to provide ecosystem function for salmon and forage fishes, by protecting them from various development impacts, including dredging, filling, and water‐quality decline. Coastal restoration is often only successful when ecosystem‐limiting factors that result in a loss of habitat are resolved. Kelp forest restoration, therefore, should be prioritized for regions of known high historical kelp forest importance, with restoration actions focused on correcting the limiting factors that caused loss and/or degradation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207