MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158945855 · doi:10.1002/aqc.3580

Air‐breathing ecology of<i>Arapaima</i>sp.: Conservation implications for an imperilled fish

2021· article· en· W3158945855 on OpenAlexaff
Gretchen L. Stokes, Leandro Castello, Thiago Alexandre Petersen, Steven J. Cooke, Michael Power, Jansen Zuanon, Eduardo G. Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of WaterlooCarleton University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsPopulationBiologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Animal scienceFisheryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arapaima (Arapaimasp.) are highly overexploited fish endemic to the Amazon basin. Because the fish are obligate air‐breathers, it is possible to use surface‐breathing events to count individuals visually for population censuses important for conservation, yet uncertainties remain about body size and environmental influences on air‐breathing intervals, and thus count accuracy. This study examined relationships between breathing intervals and environmental parameters (e.g. water temperature and transparency) and body size for radio‐tagged arapaima (n = 12) in an upland river‐floodplain (Lake Ayapuá, Amazonas, Brazil). Generalized additive mixed models were used to evaluate environmental, size, and behavioural correlates of breathing intervals. Temperature was the most influential predictor of air‐breathing intervals, followed by body size. The shortest breathing intervals were associated with consecutive ‘aggressive’ breaths while the longest breathing intervals had consecutive ‘calm’ breaths. Type of breath, size, and temperature predictors revealed that breathing intervals ranged from 4 to 46 min and were not significantly different among life stages ( = 15.9 min for sub‐adults and adults (>1 m); = 14.8 min for juveniles (<1 m)). Whereas the current population census method uses fish counts in 20‐min intervals, this study found that 15% of observed breaths, and two thirds of fish, took longer than 20 min to breathe. These findings were obtained in relatively cool‐water environments, so it is recommended that future population census methods consider water temperature (e.g. extend intervals used for counts in cooler waters), which may improve the accuracy of census counts and thus further enhance arapaima conservation efforts. This study demonstrated an effective method in which fundamental biological information is used to inform and improve population census methods for an imperilled fish in a region where traditional stock assessment is ineffective. Similar approaches for adaptive stock assessments could be applied to improve conservation of other air‐breathing fishes (e.g. lungfishes) globally.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207