Effects of different angling practices on post‐release behaviour of nest‐guarding male black bass, <i>Micropterus</i> spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated how different angling practices affect the short‐term post‐release behaviour of nest‐guarding male black bass, Micropterus spp. Male largemouth bass, M. salmoides (Lacepède), and smallmouth bass, M. dolomieu (Lacepède), were angled from their nests and subjected to treatments designed to simulate a variety of common angling practices associated with catch‐and‐release angling, including fishing tournaments. In addition, some nests had broods reduced (removal of the majority of the eggs or fry from the nest) during the angling treatments to simulate predation of offspring during the angling event. Fish subjected to procedures simulating fishing tournaments (including a 1‐h livewell confinement and release 100 m from the nest) exhibited significantly longer rest periods prior to returning to their nest than did other treatment groups. This rest period was longer for largemouth bass than smallmouth bass. Brood removal and air exposure increased abandonment rates compared with controls. These results show that sublethal stressors inherent in some angling practices (such as air exposure and livewell confinement) may delay the return of male black bass to their nest. In the presence of nest predators, the delay in return time could result in increased nest abandonment.
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".