Differences in Growth, Consumption, and Metabolism among Walleyes from Different Latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological responses to environmental factors such as temperature can vary between stocks of the same species and may be linked to differences in latitude. To determine whether physiological differences exist among populations of young-of-year walleye Stizostedion vitreum as a function of geographic origin, we compared the metabolic rates, food consumption, relative growth, and conversion efficiency among walleyes from Arkansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Alberta, Canada, over a range of temperatures (5–25°C). Few or no differences were observed in metabolic rate (mg O2 · g−1 · h−1) among populations at the cooler temperatures, but walleyes from the Arkansas River, Arkansas, had higher rates than the northern populations at warmer temperatures. Both Arkansas populations also had greater food consumption rates (g · g−1 · d−1) than the northern populations at 25°C. However, growth (g · g−1 · d−1) was similar among stocks within each temperature. Our experiments indicate that physiological differences exist among walleye populations related to latitude. Walleye stocks are adapted to regional thermal conditions, and bioenergetic demands should be taken into account when managing native and introduced populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".