Does hatchery rearing of lake trout affect their reproductive behavior in the wild?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocking of hatchery-reared fishes has been used with variable success as a management action to promote the recovery of populations and species. The practice has been controversial for several reasons, including uncertainty about whether the hatchery rearing experience may affect reproduction after release. Fine-scale acoustic telemetry was used during three spawning seasons to test whether hatchery rearing affects the reproductive behavior of lake trout using a spawning shoal complex in northern Lake Huron . Within sex, wild- and hatchery-reared fish behaved similarly, but significant behavioral differences occurred between sexes. Lake trout of both sexes moved synchronously onto the spawning shoals at the completion of autumn thermal turnover and occupied the same spawning sites (confirmed visually by presence of fertilized eggs) on the shoals. Male lake trout tended to congregate directly on spawning sites, with duration of occupancy varying greatly among years. Female lake trout spent less time on spawning shoals than males and congregated less at spawning sites on shoals. Most fish visited multiple spawning sites among shoals per season, with many making multiple transits among individual spawning sites. We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that hatchery rearing impairs spawning behavior of lake trout and, therefore, conclude that behavior deficiencies on the spawning ground are likely not an impediment to rehabilitation of lake trout in northern Lake Huron. Our study narrows the field of possible impediments to lake trout rehabilitation in the Great Lakes and provides insights that expand the conceptual model of lake trout spawning behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".