MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401521678 · doi:10.1111/jfb.15884

Determinants of riverine migration success by Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) smolts from rivers across the <scp>UK</scp> and Ireland

2024· article· en· W4401521678 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica R. Rodger, Jemma Guthrie, Hannele M. Honkanen, Angus J. Lothian, Jessie Lilly, Marcus Walters, Richie Miller, Lorraine A. Hawkins, Al J. Reeve, Jamie Ribbens, Jim Henderson, Debbie Parke, Amy Green, Brian Shields, Philip Ramsden, Melanie Fletcher, Alan Kettle‐White, Brian Shaw, Stephen P. Burns, Robert Laughton, Chris J. Conroy, Chris Daphne, Keith L. Williams, Sean Robertson, Colin W. Bean, Diego del Villar‐Guerra, Catherine Waters, Robert Rosell, D. Cotter, Melanie Smith, Niall Ó Maoiléidigh, Richard Kennedy, Colin E. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsHuntsman Marine Science Centre
FundersInterregEuropean CommissionNatural EnglandScottish Natural HeritageScottish GovernmentEnvironment Agency
KeywordsSalmoDrainage basinWoodlandTributaryFisheryPopulationGeographySpatial variabilityRiver mouthEcologyFish migrationBiologyHabitatSedimentFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is some evidence that the river migration success of Atlantic salmon smolts, on their first migration to sea, varies both spatially and temporally. However, we have only a poor understanding of what may be driving this variation. In this study, we used acoustic telemetry to quantify the spatial and temporal variations in river migration success in Atlantic salmon smolts on their first migration to sea. In total 4120 Atlantic salmon smolts migrating through 22 rivers in Scotland, England, Ireland, and Northern Ireland over multiple years were included in the study. Individuals were defined as successful migrants if detected leaving the river to enter marine waters. The results show significant temporal (up to 4 years) and spatial (river) variations in migration success, with overall between‐river migration success varying from 3.4% to 97.0% and between years from 3.4% and 61.0%. Temporal variation in migration success was river specific, with some rivers being more temporally stable (exhibiting little variation between years) than others. Across all rivers and years, individual migration success was predicted positively by body condition and negatively by tag burden. The rate of migration success for a population (migration success standardized to a common river distance [proportion km−1]) was predicted by a number of environmental factors. The proportion of river catchment that comprised wetland and woodland positively predicted migration success, whereas the proportion of grassland and peatland in a catchment negatively predicted the rate of migration success. Although the mechanisms through which these effects may be operating were not directly examined in this study, we discuss some potential routes through which they may occur.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207