MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027089928 · doi:10.1577/a05-095.1

Evaluation of Two Commercially Available Pressure Chambers to Induce Triploidy in Saugeyes

2007· article· en· W2027089928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Ann G. Abiado, Michael Penn, Konrad Dąbrowski, James Stafford

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOhio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State UniversityOhio State UniversityNational Institutes of HealthOhio Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiologyAnimal scienceStockingFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The production of sterile, triploid saugeyes (female walleye Sander vitreus × male sauger S. canadensis) for aquaculture and recreational fisheries depends on the availability of a technique for large-scale induction of triploidy with more than 50% survival of hatched embryos. This study aims to provide preliminary data and observations on the use of a 2.7-L-capacity electric pressure chamber (TRC Hydraulics, Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada) for producing triploid saugeyes for stocking into Ohio waters. Small-scale experiments tested the effects of a 4-min initiation followed by 5–16 min at 9,000 psi (lb/in2; 6.89 psi = 1 kPa) on the induction of triploidy and survival of saugeye embryos produced using the TRC chamber and a manually operated 1-L pressure chamber (Aquacenter, Leland, Mississippi). There were no differences in survival to the eyed egg stage of pressure-shocked saugeye embryos (4.9–18.2%) produced using the two pressure chambers for each set of parameters tested. Survival in the control group ranged from 56.1% to 64.9%. All the pressure shock parameters produced 100% triploid saugeyes when the TRC pressure chamber was used. Triploidy ranged from 80% to 96.7% when the 1-L pressure chamber was used. We conducted large-scale experiments on May 31-April 4, 2003, and pressure-shocked 4.2 L of eggs, with sample volumes ranging from 100 to 450 mL per trial (one run) using the 2.7-L hydraulic pressure chamber at 9,000 psi (initiation time, 4 min; duration, 12 min). A large-scale batch of untreated controls (690 mL) also was produced on April 4, 2003. Both pressure-shocked and control groups were transported in plastic bags to the Hebron State Fish Hatchery for incubation at 13.2 ± 3.6°C. A total of 89.1% (n = 46) of the fish from the pressure-shocked groups were triploids and 100% (n = 40) of the fish from the controls were diploids based on flow cytometry of the hatched embryos. Survival rates for pressure-shocked and control embryos were 22.4% and 54%, respectively. The hatched embryos from each group were stocked into fertilized ponds and reared for 27–36 d. Survival of saugeyes in the two ponds with pressure-shocked fish (76.4 ± 1.75% [mean ± SD]) was 19.9% higher than that of saugeyes in 38 other Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) ponds (56.5 ± 19.1%). The pressure-shocked saugeye juveniles were 97.9% triploids (n = 48), whereas the ODW control saugeye juveniles were 100% diploids (n = 24) based on flow cytometry. Less than 0.1% of the Ohio State University control saugeyes stocked in ponds survived. Pressure-shocked saugeyes were smaller and shorter than control saugeyes. The condition factors of pressure-shocked saugeyes did not differ from those of ODW control saugeyes. The use of the electric hydraulic pressure chamber for mass production of triploid saugeyes shows promise for improving survival rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207