Electrofishing‐induced cardiac disturbance and injury in rainbow trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR) and stroke volume (SV) were monitored in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss electroshocked (pulsed DC) with various voltage, frequency, pulse width and shock duration settings. Additionally, behavioural recovery times and internal haemorrhaging were examined. During electroshock, heart function became erratic and typically ceased for much of the event (cardiac arrest). Following electroshock, CO increased almost entirely due to an increase in SV. Cardiac function generally returned to resting levels within 2–3 h. Behaviourally, recovery was much more rapid, typically taking only a few minutes for fish to regain equilibrium and to begin swimming normally, and only rarely was >1 h. Internal injury ranged from 0 to 7 cm 2 of haemorrhaging along the spine and surrounding musculature, although only 4% of the fish had corresponding damage to the vertebrae. Comparisons across the various electrofisher settings indicate that response and injury are highly variable, but generally increased with more intense settings. Higher frequencies and voltages appear to most negatively affect behavioural recovery and injury while longer shock durations increased the length of cardiac arrest and the duration of cardiac recovery. Because of the variability in results and small sample sizes, however, the strongest conclusion that can be drawn from this work is that electrofishing, regardless of the settings, has a considerable negative impact on rainbow trout that is often not apparent externally. Additionally, this study has shown how electrofishing directly effects fish physiologically through impairment of cardiac function. Studies examining the physiological and behavioural response of fishes and subsequent recovery will be necessary for the development of electrofishing guidelines which minimize the disturbance to fishes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".