The effect of surveillance fishing on migration distance of Atlantic Salmon during the spawning period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Surveillance fishing surveys can be performed to estimate the proportion of farmed salmon represented in the spawning stock of native Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar populations. These surveys take place after the recreational fishing period and therefore closer to the spawning period than the open recreational fishing season. Although catch-and-release angling has been demonstrated to affect salmon migration during the summer months, surveillance fishing that is conducted close to the spawning time could have more severe effects. Methods To test this, the migration distance of Atlantic Salmon (n = 74) caught in the Orkla River, Norway, was tracked by use of radiotelemetry. One group was tagged during the regular fishing season in the summer (control group), whereas another group was tagged in autumn during surveillance fishing (surveillance group). Result Sixty-one salmon remained for analysis after we excluded fish that were recaptured, died, or migrated to other rivers. Relocation of the salmon during autumn (October 11–31) was used to compare movements and test for differences in migration using negative binomial regression because distances were nonnegative integers. During the tracking period, the surveillance group moved 12 ± 14 km (mean ± standard deviation) and the control group moved 13 ± 15 km; both groups moved 1 ± 2 km/day on average. There was no evidence that surveillance fishing impacted movement of the salmon compared to controls. However, one salmon died after tagging and three were not released due to injuries; total mortality of 9% during surveillance fishing could be unsustainable for smaller populations. Consequently, factors such as surveillance sample size, the status of the salmon population, and the population size should be assessed for each river individually when deciding the necessity of and approach to surveillance fishing. Conclusion The results support existing recommendations to use careful handling and to end surveillance at least 2 weeks prior to the expected onset of spawning, thus providing a sufficiently long period for recovery after surveillance fishing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".