MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909861719 · doi:10.1002/tafs.10150

Vertical Habitat Use by Adult Walleyes Conflicts with Expectations from Fishery‐Independent Surveys

2019· article· en· W2909861719 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Marie Gorman, Richard T. Kraus, Lee F.G. Gutowsky, Christopher S. Vandergoot, Yingming Zhao, Carey T. Knight, Matthew D. Faust, Todd A. Hayden, Charles C. Krueger

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsFisheryDiel vertical migrationHabitatWater columnEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>PopulationOceanographyGeographyBiologyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stock assessments of Walleyes Sander vitreus in Lake Erie rely on a combination of suspended and bottom overnight gill‐net surveys to provide population and demographic information. However, the assumption that Walleyes undertake diel vertical migrations and become available to the suspended gill nets at night has never been validated. To understand how vertical habitat use affects the availability of Walleyes to fishery‐independent surveys, we compared individual behaviors observed by means of acoustic depth telemetry tags (20 individuals; 2013–2016) with catches in paired suspended and bottom gill‐net sets (273 paired sets; 2013–2016) used by management agencies. In contrast to our expectations and observations in other lakes, the mean depths for Walleyes most often occurred in the lower one‐half to one‐third of the water column, and at lake depths <25 m the fish tended to be close to the bottom. The relationship between fish and lake depth was dependent on year and season. At lake depths >15 m, Walleyes were found at shallower depths during stratified periods (i.e., summer) than during unstratified periods (autumn). They were also found at shallower depths in 2015 and 2016 than in 2013 and 2014. In paired autumn gill‐net surveys, (1) the overall proportion of Walleye catch was nearly equal in suspended and bottom gill nets and (2) the proportion of the catch in suspended gill nets declined with fish length. The pattern of decline was dependent on how deep the suspended net was fished and the year in which the data were collected. These results provide evidence that the suspended gill‐net surveys currently being used to assess Walleye demographics in Lake Erie are biased toward the capture small Walleyes, while bottom nets are biased toward the capture of large ones. Future telemetry investigations will be needed to understand whether these biases reflect differences in the depth of habitat between small and large Walleyes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207