The Postrelease Survival of Walleyes Following Ice-Angling on Lake Nipissing, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Natural resource agencies have developed catch-and-release regulations for Walleyes Sander vitreus of prohibited size and number to reduce mortality in many recreational fisheries. The efficacy of such regulations is contingent upon the released fish surviving, but survival data on Walleyes captured by ice-angling are lacking. We estimated the survival of Lake Nipissing (Ontario, Canada) Walleyes that were captured by both active and passive ice-angling methods using a variety of hook types and lures baited with Emerald Shiners Notropis atherinoides. We also assessed the role of de-hooking methods on the survival of deeply hooked Walleyes. After the angling event, Walleyes (n = 260) were held for 24 h in a submerged holding pen to estimate postrelease survival. Average mortality after the 24-h holding period was 6.9%. Fewer Walleyes captured by active angling were deeply hooked (9.3%) than passively caught fish (50.4%), and deeply hooked Walleyes were observed to have more frequent postrelease mortality (14.8%) than shallow-hooked Walleyes (3.0%). There was no significant difference in mortality rates of Walleyes caught by passive angling (9.8%) or active angling (2.8%); mortality rates of fish caught on circle hooks (6.1%), J-hooks (8.2%), and treble hooks (5.6%) also did not differ. Neither air temperature nor the presence of barotrauma had a significant effect on mortality of captured Walleyes. Survival did not significantly differ between deeply hooked fish that had the line cut (11.1%) and those that had the hook removed (22.6%). Results from this study suggest a relatively high incidence of Walleye survival after catch-and-release angling through the ice.
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 | 0.001 | 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".