Cited by 74Fish Ecology and Management StudiesMarine and fisheries researchFish Biology and Ecology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconstructing the Migratory Behavior and Long-Term Survivorship of Juvenile Chinook Salmon under Contrasting Hydrologic Regimes

Open access

Abstract

The loss of genetic and life history diversity has been documented across many taxonomic groups, and is considered a leading cause of increased extinction risk. Juvenile salmon leave their natal rivers at different sizes, ages and times of the year, and it is thought that this life history variation contributes to their population sustainability, and is thus central to many recovery efforts. However, in order to preserve and restore diversity in life history traits, it is necessary to first understand how environmental factors affect their expression and success. We used otolith (87)Sr/(86)Sr in adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytcha) returning to the Stanislaus River in the California Central Valley (USA) to reconstruct the sizes at which they outmigrated as juveniles in a wetter (2000) and drier (2003) year. We compared rotary screw trap-derived estimates of outmigrant timing, abundance and size with those reconstructed in the adults from the same cohort. This allowed us to estimate the relative survival and contribution of migratory phenotypes (fry, parr, smolts) to the adult spawning population under different flow regimes. Juvenile abundance and outmigration behavior varied with hydroclimatic regime, while downstream survival appeared to be driven by size- and time-selective mortality. Although fry survival is generally assumed to be negligible in this system, >20% of the adult spawners from outmigration year 2000 had outmigrated as fry. In both years, all three phenotypes contributed to the spawning population, however their relative proportions differed, reflecting greater fry contributions in the wetter year (23% vs. 10%) and greater smolt contributions in the drier year (13% vs. 44%). These data demonstrate that the expression and success of migratory phenotypes vary with hydrologic regime, emphasizing the importance of maintaining diversity in a changing climate.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0122380

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Spatial variation in the freshwater and estuarine environment decreases variation in juvenile survival over time, contributing to the portfolio effect.

    “However, spatial variation in the freshwater and estuarine environment also decreases variation in juvenile survival over time, contributing to the “portfolio effect” [5, 6].”

    From Estimating Common Growth Patterns in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Diverse Genetic Stocks and a Large Spatial Extent (2016) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction says that asynchronous salmon populations can stabilize the stock complex through a portfolio effect, and the Discussion (Management implications) says juvenile life-history diversity likely buffers variation. Neither passage establishes that spatial variation specifically in freshwater and estuarine environments decreases variation in juvenile survival over time. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

34 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. DR Montgomery, 2000, Coevolution of the Pacific salmon and Pacific Rim topography, Geology, 28, 1107, 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<1107:COTPSA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  2. Yoshiyama RM, Gerstung ER, Fisher FW, Moyle PB (2001) Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California. In: Brown RL, editor. Contributions to the biology of Central Valley salmonids, Vol 1 Fish Bulletin No 179. Sacramento. pp. 71–176.
  3. RB MacFarlane, 2002, Physiological ecology of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) at the southern end of their distribution, the San Francisco Estuary and Gulf of the Farallones, California, Fishery Bulletin, 100, 244
  4. MJ Unwin, 1997, Survival of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, from a spawning tributary of the Rakaia Rivet. New Zealand, in relation to spring and summer mainstem flows, Fishery Bulletin, 95, 812
  5. RG Titus, 2004, Use of Otolith Microstructure to Estimate Growth Rates of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from a Central Valley, California Stock. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 39, 181
  6. Genz A, Bretz F, Miwa T, Mi Z, Leisch F, Scheipl F, et al. (2014) Multivariate Normal and t Distributions. In: CRAN, editor. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mvtnorm/mvtnorm.pdf. · DOI
  7. Demko D (2003) Chapter 6 Complimentary Studies Related to the VAMP. Evaluation of Chinook salmon fry survival in the Stanislaus River: biological response to supplemental winter flow pulse In: SJRGA, editor. 2003 Annual Technical Report.
  8. SJRGA (2003) Chapter 5 Salmon Smolt Survival Investigations.
  9. BR Beckman, 1998, Relation of Fish Size and Growth Rate to Migration of Spring Chinook Salmon Smolts, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18, 537, 10.1577/1548-8675(1998)018<0537:ROFSAG>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  10. JW Burns, 1971, The carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids in some northern California streams, California Fish and Game, 57, 44
  11. Kjelson M, Raquel P, Fisher F (1981) Influences of freshwater inflow on Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawystcha) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. In: Cross RD, Williams DL, editors. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 88–108.
  12. SJRGA (2013) Chapter 5: Salmon smolt survival investigations. In: San Joaquin River Group Authority, editor. On implementation and monitoring of the San Joquin River Agreement and the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP): 2011 Annual Technical Report: California Water Resources Control Board in compliance with D-1641.
  13. SM Sogard, 1997, Size-Selective Mortality in the Juvenile Stage of Teleost Fishes: A Review, Bulletin of Marine Science, 60, 1129
  14. J Hjort, 1914, Fluctuations in the great fisheries of Northern Europe, Conseil Permanent International Pour L'Exploration De La Mer, 20, 1
  15. Mesick C (in review) The proportion of hatchery fish in California’s Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon escapements from 1980 to 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sturrock, A. M., Wikert, J. D., Heyne, T., Mesick, C., Hubbard, A. E., Hinkelman, T. M., Weber, P. K., Whitman, G. E., Glessner, J. J., & Johnson, R. C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Cramer Fish Sciences (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (US)
Corresponding author
Sturrock, Anna M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-05-20
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
e0122380
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1482154322
Cited by
74
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DEAC5207NA27344, AC52‐07NA27344, Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344)
  • U.S. Department of the Interior
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (DE-AC52-07NA27344)
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife
  • Bureau of Reclamation
  • University of California, Davis (DE-AC52-07NA27344)
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DE‐AC5207NA27344, Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344, AC52-07NA27344)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Marine and fisheries research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, migratory phenotype, life history diversity, hydrological regime, drought, fry survival, smolt survival, size-selective mortality, Stanislaus River, Central Valley, climate change, population sustainability
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, California, Phenotype, Salmon, Animal Migration, Rivers, Climate Change, Hydrology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review