Effects of Surgically Implanted Acoustic Tags on Body Condition, Growth, and Survival in a Small, Laterally Compressed Forage Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Telemetry studies often assume a lack of adverse effects caused by tag attachment and presence in various species and size‐classes, which may lead to inaccurate conclusions about fish behavior in field studies. Studies that examine the effects of tagging are typically performed on salmonids and adult fishes rather than on the small fishes that are increasingly becoming the focus of telemetry studies. The objectives of this study were to assess the effects of intracoelomic acoustic tagging on growth, condition, survival, and tag retention in subadult hatchery Bloaters Coregonus hoyi (a focal species for restoration efforts in the Laurentian Great Lakes) and to determine the maximum tag burden below which tag effects are reduced. Fish were either tagged with one of three dummy acoustic transmitters (Vemco V6: n = 50; V7: n = 50; V9: n = 50) or were followed as controls (n = 50; anesthesia, PIT‐tagging, and handling only) or sham individuals (n = 49; anesthesia, surgery, suturing, and PIT‐tagging but no acoustic tag implanted). Tags represented 1.3–9.0% of body mass. All fish received a PIT tag for individual identification throughout the 6‐month monitoring period (November 2014–May 2015). Survival exceeded 90% in all treatment groups, and the tag retention rate was 100%. All surviving fish appeared healthy and in excellent condition at the conclusion of the experiment. The results of this study suggest that acoustic transmitters with a tag mass : body mass ratio of 9% or less can be successfully implanted intracoelomically into subadult Bloaters—small, laterally compressed pelagic fish—with no adverse effects.
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".