MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987511235

Taking Stock of Chinook Salmon Energy Densities has Implications for Resident Killer Whales Meeting Their Energy Needs

2022· article· en· W6987511235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern CEDAR (Western Washington University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinook windEnergy densityWhaleStock (firearms)Stock assessmentPredationEnergy (signal processing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rely on large reserves of energy accumulated at sea to complete their journey upstream, mature reproductively, and spawn. In part due to these energy reserves, Chinook are the primary prey species for resident killer whales. However, energy density has been shown to vary significantly among Chinook populations, indicating that data on stock specific energy density are necessary to assess whether available prey can meet resident killer whale energy requirements. In this study, we sought to derive stock specific estimates of Southern British Columbia Chinook energy density. To begin, we evaluated a microwave energy meter as a non-lethal, rapid method for assessing lipid content (a proxy for energy density) in Chinook. Energy meter readings were collected from 60 Chinook which were then fully homogenized and lipid extracted to calibrate the device to measure whole-body lipid content. Our analysis provided a strong linear regression relationship between energy meter measurements and whole-body lipid content (R²=0.88, p < 0.001). Following this analysis we deployed the energy meter at the Albion Fraser River Test Fishery in Maple Ridge, BC Canada in 2020. We collected energy meter readings from 1568 individual Chinook encompassing members of all 5 Fraser management units. We identified three distinct groups of these management units based on average lipid level: Fall-41 (6.7% ± 1.8), Summer-41 (10.8% ± 2.2) and a group containing Spring-42, Spring-52 and Summer-52 (13.0% ± 2.8). Our results show that the Summer-41 group contained 25% more kcal/kg than the Fall-41 group and that the Spring-42, Spring-52 and Summer-52 group contained 40% more kcal/kg than the Fall-41 group. This study indicates how Chinook life history drives energy accumulation and provides values which can be used in conjunction with known Chinook and resident killer whale distribution to more accurately assess whether available prey meet predator energy needs.

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)0.002
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern CEDAR (Western Washington University)Same topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207