First evidence of genetically distinct winter- and spring-spawning components of Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Size and hatch date variation among 0-group Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) has increased following a series of marine heatwaves (2014–2016, nicknamed “The Blob”, and 2019) that negatively impacted the fishery. In this study, we used daily otolith increments, whole genome sequencing, and fatty acid analyses (FA) to compare two size groups of age-0 cod co-occurring in sites near Kodiak Island in 2021. Size groups reflected genetically differentiated winter and spring spawning groups within the currently defined “Western GOA/Eastern Bering Sea” complex. Winter-spawned juveniles were larger and in higher energetic condition (FA density) than younger, spring-spawned juveniles. Our results raise several immediate questions, including whether these genotypes have unique environmental adaptations (e.g., “ecotypes”), and whether spawning phenology underlies genetic subpopulation structure more broadly. Importantly, our findings demonstrate that phenotypic and genotypic alignment could mediate how environmental conditions differentially select for early- and late-spawning strategies, shaping population resilience under future climate variability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".