Considerations for Water Temperature-Related Fishery Closures in Recreational Atlantic Salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) Catch and Release Fisheries: A Case Study from Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence has demonstrated a decrease in post-release survival of angled Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) during periods of warm water temperatures. Consequently, the application of water temperature-related fishery closures by resource managers is gaining interest. Here, the role of water temperature-related fishery closures in recreational Atlantic salmon fisheries is reviewed by (1) presenting a synopsis of factors that could influence the effectiveness of these fishery closures, (2) using novel fisheries and water temperature data from Eastern Canada, to illustrate how various closures can affect management outcomes, and (3) discussing alternative options for managers to implement such fishery closures. Results suggest there are a number of considerations when implementing a water temperature-related fishery closure. For populations meeting conservation requirements, results show that additional angling opportunities can occur at minimal conservation cost by applying morning-angling-only protocols in rivers during periods of reduced catch and release and moderately warm water temperatures. The impact on salmon populations, however, will be higher in situations where high catch and release rates overlap with warm water periods (e.g. when day-night water temperatures remain in excess of 20 °C or remain high during the summer) or occur over prolonged periods of extreme warm water temperatures. In situations where resource managers have few resources and need to implement water temperature-related fishery closures on a large spatial scale, it is recommended that strategically chosen index rivers to inform water temperature-related fishery closures are used. In rivers with healthy salmon populations, angling opportunities during periods of warm water could be considered if supported by enhanced monitoring (e.g., monitoring salmon abundance, spatially-structured water temperature data, and mandatory catch reporting (catch and effort)) that optimize tradeoffs between socio-economic benefits and conservation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".