Electroshocking Influences Chinook Salmon Egg Survival and Juvenile Physiology and Immunology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While electrofishing has become a common capture technique in fisheries research, the potential impact of this technique on the fish is not completely understood. Mature female chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and eggs at key developmental stages were electroshocked with 10-s pulsed DC from a standard backpack electroshocker in a controlled environment. Eggs from one-third of the shocked females showed extreme mortality (>93%), while the remaining shocked families shared egg mortality (12-20%) similar to the controls (9.9%). Eggs shocked at the early eyed stage showed significantly higher mortality (34.2%) than control (unshocked) eggs, while mortalities were low (≤2.1%) for shocked eggs and for controls at all other developmental stages. Upon examination of fish radiographs, we found that the electroshocked juvenile fish had significantly more spinal aberrations than the unshocked fish. Hematocrit, serum cortisol and glucose, serum lysozyme activity, and total leukocyte counts were monitored in control and shocked juvenile fish for 3 weeks. Hematocrit declined over 3 weeks in both groups. Serum cortisol and glucose levels increased significantly in both groups within 12 h, but shocked fish showed a slower return of cortisol levels to preshock values and an overall higher glucose response. The combination of electroshock and handling did not affect serum lysozyme levels, but unshocked (handled) fish exhibited immediate and significantly reduced lysozyme activity for up to 2 weeks. Total leukocyte numbers were higher in shocked fish late in the experiment (at 2 and 3 weeks). Although electrofishing is useful to determine the precapture physiological status of field-caught fish, our data show that electrofishing can have significant detrimental impacts on the fish.
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".