Capture of Spawning Brook Trout by Electrofishing Does Not Impair Embryo Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrofishing is widely used to capture fish in freshwater systems. Fisheries assessment and fish culture activities that occur during spawning do so in the absence of a meaningful base of evidence about the potential effects of electrofishing on fish reproduction. In this laboratory experiment, we assessed whether electrofishing adult Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis affected the survival of their embryos. We used two genetically distinct strains of Brook Trout (domestic and wild-origin strains) to do so. Both strains and sexes of fish were exposed to pulsed-DC electrofishing techniques in a fully factorial design (i.e., male shocked, female shocked, both parents shocked, or neither parent shocked [control]), after which their incubating offspring were monitored for survival to the eyed egg, alevin, and fry stages. We did not detect any effects of our electrofishing treatment or interactions with the sex or strain of the fish exposed to electrofishing, suggesting that electrofishing did not negatively impact gamete viability. Our results support the use of responsible electrofishing to collect spawning salmonids for the purpose of gamete collection for hatchery rearing.
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) | 0.002 | 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".