Physiological Consequences of Different Fishing Tournament Culling Methods on Largemouth Bass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In live-release angling tournaments, fish are captured and typically held within onboard live-well systems, where they are subsequently “culled” (i.e., released) as larger fish are captured. Anglers often mark individual fish to easily identify them based on weight and to reduce handling time. However, there is limited information about the physiological consequences of using different culling apparatus on fish. This study examined the physiological consequences associated with using four different types of culling apparatus (i.e., metal stringer through the jaw, pincher on the jaw, lasso around the caudal peduncle, and zippered mesh bag) on Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides relative to controls during a 2-h live-well retention period. Blood samples were taken afterwards and were analyzed for blood glucose, blood lactate, plasma cortisol, and osmolality. Compared to the baseline control (i.e., fish that were captured, subjected to blood sampling, and immediately released), blood parameters (except osmolality) were significantly elevated in all treatments. The pincher and lasso treatments tended to yield higher physiological disturbances than the other treatments, including fish that were held in the live well without any culling apparatus. Moreover, the lasso culling apparatus appeared to cause noticeable injury relative to the other culling devices. Our research provides valuable information to help guide the selection of culling gear that maintains the welfare status of retained fish during tournaments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".