Growth response of largemouth bass (<i>Micropterus salmoides</i>) to catch-and-release angling: a 27-year mark–recapture study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catch-and-release angling is gaining popularity worldwide and plays an increasingly important role in both fisheries management and conservation. Mortality from catch-and-release angling is well documented across species, but the sublethal effects have not been evaluated in a natural setting. Laboratory studies have yielded mixed results regarding catch-and-release impacts on fish growth. These studies do not adequately capture the scales of stress and variability of a natural system. We used a 27-year mark–recapture study of 1050 individually tagged largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) to determine the effects of catch-and-release angling on the growth in a natural setting. Individual bass were angled one to six times per season. Recapture intervals ranged from 1 to 98 days. Largemouth bass exhibited a post-release period (~6 days) of weight loss. Following this weight loss, we observed a subsequent period of compensatory growth facilitating recovery to normal weight. We found that catch-and-release angling had little impact on the overall seasonal growth patterns of largemouth bass and therefore should have limited adverse effects on growth-dependent ecological functions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".