Testing the assumption of annual shell ring deposition in freshwater mussels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the assumption of annual shell ring deposition by freshwater mussels in three rivers using 17 species. In 2000, we notched shell margins, returned animals to the water, and retrieved them in 2001. In 2003, we measured shells, affixed numbered tags, returned animals, and retrieved them in 2004 and 2005. We validated deposition of a single internal annulus per year in all species and in 94% of specimens. Most unvalidated shells were old individuals with tightly crowded rings. Handling produced a conspicuous disturbance ring in all specimens and often resulted in shell damage. Observed growth was similar to but slightly lower than growth predicted by von Bertalanffy length-at-age models developed independently from shell annuli; further, handling specimens in 2 consecutive years reduced growth more than handling only once. These results show that mussels are extremely sensitive to handling. Brief handling does not likely increase short-term mortality, but repeated handling could decrease long-term fitness. Handling effects should be considered in sampling programs or when interpreting results of mark-recapture studies designed to estimate mussel growth. Production of annual shell rings is a pervasive phenomenon across species, space, and time, and validated shell rings can provide accurate estimates of age and growth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".