MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Skipped spawning in female iteroparous fishes

2005· article· en· W2007791586 on OpenAlexaff
Rick M. Rideout, George A. Rose, Margaret Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueFish and Fisheries · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemelparity and iteroparitySpawn (biology)VitellogenesisBiologyEconomic shortageSexual maturityGonadFisheryEcologyZoologyReproductionEmbryoEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is often assumed that iteroparous fishes spawn annually once reaching sexual maturity, but this is not always the case. This paper reviews available information on skipped spawning in female teleost fishes. All instances of non‐annual spawning are described as one of three types (retaining, reabsorbing, resting), depending on where in the normal spawning cycle development has been interrupted. Retaining ripe eggs is caused by conditions experienced during the spawning season (fish density, mate availability, pollution), whereas failure to start vitellogenesis (resting) or the breakdown of all oocytes that enter into vitellogenesis (reabsorbing) is caused by factors experienced prior to the spawning season (primarily temperature and poor nutrition). It is speculated that the relative shortage of data on non‐annual spawning may be because of difficulties in identifying non‐reproductive individuals. In an attempt to rectify this situation, the criteria needed to identify females undergoing the three forms of spawning omission are presented in terms of external appearance of gonads, gonad indices, and histological analysis. The energy saved by not spawning in a poor year may lead to increased survival and the probability of spawning in subsequent years. As the cumulative number of progeny gained by surviving to spawn in multiple subsequent years outweighs the number of progeny lost by not spawning in a given single year, occasional omission of spawning may constitute an adaptive trait in long‐lived iteroparous fishes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations376
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFish and FisheriesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207