MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Producing a better smolt: Can ‘winter’ treatments combining low temperature and short daylength photoperiods enhance the smolt quality of Atlantic salmon?

2024· article· en· W4403144551 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel W. Montgomery, Benjamin Negrete, Le Thi Hong Gam, Ayaka Izutsu, Brett M. Culbert, Nicholas J. Bernier, Munetaka Shimizu, Colin J. Brauner, Jeffrey G. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBiologyphotoperiodismFisheryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The parr to smolt transition (PST) is a critical life stage for Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) aquaculture. Aquaculture commonly uses artificial square wave photoperiod treatments to initiate the PST but faces problems related to poor smolt quality, including elevated mortality after seawater transfer and increased disease prevalence. We investigated whether the use of an additional seasonal cue, temperature, in combination with short daylength photoperiod treatments improved smolt quality. We exposed ∼35 g parr to an experimental treatment involving a 3 × 2 factorial design including ‘winter’ photoperiod treatments of 24L:00D, 12L:12D, and 08L:16D combined with a ‘winter’ temperature treatment of 14 °C or 8 °C. Short daylength ‘winter’ photoperiods (12L:12D and 08L:16D) led to improved measures of smolt status such as gill Na + /K + -ATPase activity, seawater Na + /K + -ATPase isoform expression in the gills, and plasma growth hormone levels when compared to salmon kept in constant light while reduced ‘winter’ temperature (8 °C vs 14 °C) had few impacts on smolt status measures. Despite this, there were no apparent benefits of exposure to short ‘winter’ photoperiods (12L:12D or 08L:16D) compared to constant light on whole organism osmoregulation (plasma osmolality and ion content, white muscle water content) after seawater transfer. Both short daylength ‘winter’ photoperiods (12L:12D or 08L:16D) and reduced ‘winter’ temperatures (8 °C) decreased growth rates in freshwater compared to salmon kept in constant light and temperature, but only salmon exposed to short daylength ‘winter’ photoperiods had enhanced growth in seawater. Our results indicate that the use of a reduced ‘winter’ temperature treatment in combination with short daylength ‘winter’ photoperiods does not enhance smolt quality in aquaculture production of Atlantic salmon when compared to the use of short daylength ‘winter’ photoperiods alone. This highlights a continued need for research into alternative strategies to improve the robustness of salmon smolts. • A ‘winter’ temperature treatment of 8 °C did not improve smolt quality regardless of ‘winter’ photoperiod treatment • Short daylength ‘winter’ photoperiods increased gill Na + /K + -ATPase activity and the ratio of seawater to freshwater iosoform expression. • Short ‘winter’ photoperiods reduced SGR and FCR in freshwater but improved them during the 1st month after SW transfer. • Short ‘winter’ photoperiod led to elevated ṀO 2min and ṀO 2max but no overall effect on aerobic scope or hypoxia tolerance • Further research is still required to optimize smolt production and improve smolt quality at the time of seawater transfer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquacultureSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207