Life history of American eel Anguilla rostrata: new insights from otolith microchemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal patterns in Sr:Ca concentration ratios of American eel Anguilla rostrata otoliths indicate variable patterns of residence in -and migration among -river, estuarine, and marine habitats.Annual growth rates, based on Sr:Ca habitat determinations, increase with increasing habitat salinity (fresh water < estuarine < marine) and increasing proportion of residence at higher salinities.Increased annual growth rate reduces the age at maturity because maturity is triggered by size rather than age.Our results highlight the importance of brackish and marine waters as areas of eel production.Most eels that recruit to fresh water do so as elvers but some (12 to 25%) recruit as juveniles.After entering fresh water, between 23 and 100% of eels remain exclusively in fresh water.Most inter-habitat migrants make only one such movement before their spawning migration.Exclusively freshwater residence increases with distance upstream.Inter-habitat migrations may produce otolith checks that may be mistaken for annuli and increase the difficulty of age determination.Otolith growth periods may acceptably indicate freshwater or seawater habitat residency durations when the otolith (fish) growth rates in each habitat are similar but not if the growth rates differ greatly.Outlier Sr:Ca values may often depart substantially from a habitat norm but whether they represent a brief habitat transition is uncertain.Ignoring them potentially underestimates, while unnecessarily counting them overestimates, the frequency of inter-habitat movement.Research requirements include determination of the geographic extent and degree of periodic euryhaline migratory behaviour by American eels.Development of a simple, comprehensive residence and inter-habitat migration classification scheme would greatly assist the interpretation and comparison of otolith microchemistry studies.
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".