Effect of Photoperiod Manipulation on Broodstock Spawning, Fertilization Success, and Egg Developmental Abnormalities in Atlantic Cod, <i>Gadus morhua</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spawning activity in two captive Atlantic cod broodstock groups previously captured from the wild stock fishery was monitored over three spawning seasons. Both groups spawned under ambient photoperiod (PP) in the first year, after which photomanipulation was applied to compress the PP cycle of one broodstock group, while the second group was maintained on natural PP. Increased total egg volumes, number of egg batches, total egg production, and duration of the spawning season were observed in both ambient PP and advanced PP groups in the second and third spawning seasons. Compared to ambient controls, the photoadvanced group commenced spawning earlier, had a longer spawning season, produced a lower total volume of eggs over the entire spawning season, and had lower mean daily batch volumes of eggs, and the eggs were of smaller mean diameter. Fertilization success was >90% in all years, increased in both groups in the first year after photomanipulation but declined to prior levels in the following year. No consistent difference in fertilization success was observed between advanced PP and ambient PP groups. Rates of cell development abnormalities were low (<10%) in both groups over the three spawning seasons. Abnormalities of cell symmetry and clarity increased in both ambient PP and advanced PP groups over the three spawning seasons. However, no consistent differences in rate of cell abnormalities were observed between advanced PP and ambient PP groups within years. We conclude that PP advancement is an effective technique to compress the time between successive spawning periods in Atlantic cod and does not negatively affect fertilization success or rates of cell developmental abnormalities. However, it has a negative effect on both volume and size of eggs produced.
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".