Effects of Implanted Dummy Acoustic Transmitters on Juvenile Atlantic Salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of intraperitoneally implanted dummy acoustic transmitters on juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar of comparable size to wild presmolts and smolts were examined in two laboratory experiments. In the first experiment, different-sized tags (24, 28, and 32 mm × 8-mm diameter) that mimicked acoustic transmitters suitable for long-term studies were assessed. There was 60% mortality (3 of 5 fish) with the 32-mm implant early in the 316-d study and 20% mortality (1 of 5 fish) with the 28-mm implant. All fish surviving with 28- and 32-mm implants eventually expelled their tags, compared with only 20% of fish (1 of 5) with the 24-mm implant. Tag expulsion was not a cause of death. After implantation, tags were first encapsulated in a thick membrane and then expelled between 142 and 217 d after surgery, exiting at a site where pressure of the tag on the abdominal wall was greatest. Growth of tagged fish was initially delayed and lagged that of control and sham-tagged fish, but survivors from the tagged groups eventually caught up and grew at the same rate as the other two groups. In the second experiment, 28-mm implants, representing 8.5% of body weight, had a negative effect on the fish 1 and 3 d after surgery by slightly reducing critical swimming speed compared with that of control fish. However, the swimming performance of tagged fish began to recover after 7 d. Surgical implantation of acoustic transmitters can meet the requirements for tagging and tracking small Atlantic salmon over a period of months. However, we recommend a transmitter length of 16% or less of fish length and a transmitter weight under 8% of fish weight for juvenile Atlantic salmon of about 14–15 cm and 35–45 g in order to maximize the chances of success in telemetry 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".