Thiamine Status of Cayuga Lake Rainbow Trout and Its Influence on Spawning Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in Cayuga Lake, New York, appear to be suffering from a thiamine deficiency because their progeny develop general weakness, loss of equilibrium, and increased mortality, which are prevented by treatment with thiamine. Thiamine status and its effect on adults are unknown. In 2000 and 2002, we captured, tagged, and released 64 and 189 prespawning rainbow trout, respectively, in Cayuga Inlet at a collection weir to evaluate their thiamine status and the effect of thiamine injection (150 nmol/g) on instream migration. Half of the rainbow trout in each year (32 in 2000 and 95 in 2002) were injected with thiamine and half were uninjected; all rainbow trout were released above the weir to continue their upstream migration. By means of electrofishing in 2000, we recaptured significantly more thiamine-injected (N = 7) than uninjected (N = 0) rainbow trout approximately 7.0–9.3 river kilometers upstream from the weir. In 2002, the concentration of thiamine in the muscle of rainbow trout collected above a 1.8-m cascade was significantly higher (mean ± SD = 5.47 ± 5.04 nmol/g; range = 1.0– 13.8 nmol/g; N = 8) than that of rainbow trout collected either above a 1.0-m cascade (1.36 ± 0.71 nmol/g; range = 0.6–3.3 nmol/g; N = 16) or below the cascades (1.20 ± 0.46 nmol/g; range = 0.7–1.9 nmol/g; N = 5). The lowest concentration of thiamine observed in the muscle of rainbow trout collected upstream of the 1.8-m cascade was 1.0 nmol/g, suggesting that the threshold concentration required for rainbow trout to ascend the cascade was no more than that. Analyses of thiamine in the muscle of 26 untagged rainbow trout captured in Cayuga Inlet in 2002 showed that 16 fish (62%) had at least 1.0 nmol/g, which was apparently sufficient to support vigorous migration.
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".