Physical activity and behavior of a centrarchid fish, <i>Micropterus salmoides</i> (Lacépède), during spawning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract – The spawning behavior of male and female largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (Lacépède) was studied in central Illinois during the spring of 1998 to examine patterns of muscular activity associated with different spawning related behaviors and to evaluate whether electromyogram (EMGi) telemetry could be used to detect spawning activity. Fish were implanted with EMGi transmitters (8 females, 16 males) on April 7, prior to the initiation of spawning, and were released in four 0.10‐ha earthen research ponds. Continuous EMGi records, underwater videography and additional visual observations for one pair of EMGi tagged fish were collected throughout the entire spawning event, allowing us to quantify behavioral correlates of physical activity. Male EMGi activity patterns were only correlated with female patterns during courting and periods of male aggression toward the female. Overall, EMGi activity was highest for the female during shuddering (gamete deposition), whereas male EMGi activity was similarly high during periods of nest excavation, shuddering and post‐spawn parental care activities. During spawning, female EMGi activity was positively correlated to shuddering. Average daily EMGi activities for females peaked on the day of spawning. As a result of their engagement in parental care activities, male activity continued to rise even after spawning was completed. EMGi telemetry appears to be a useful technique for monitoring the reproductive activity of largemouth bass, especially in areas of high cover or turbid water or during low light conditions. This technology permitted us to quantify and contrast the activity patterns associated with different spawning related activities, information that will be required to construct accurate, gender‐specific bioenergetics models for this species.
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".