Using a novel biologging approach to assess how different handling practices influence the post-release behaviour of Northern Pike across a wide range of body sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing body of research focused on how angled fish respond to catch-and-release (C&R). However, most of those studies do not span a wide range of body sizes for the targeted species. Physical injury and physiological responses to C&R can be size-dependent, and methods used for landing fish of different sizes vary. As such, studying the response to C&R across a range of fish sizes may help inform best practices that improve outcomes for released fish. Northern Pike ( Esox lucius ) widely ranges in body size. Anglers may land them by hand, cradle, or net, and they are often released voluntarily or to comply with regulations. We angled 25 Northern Pike (total length 620–1030 mm) from one population and recorded fight, handling, and unhooking times across landing methods (i.e., hand, cradle, net). Prior to release, a pop-off biologging package was temporarily affixed to each fish to monitor locomotor activity, depth, and water temperature during a 12-h period post-release to understand how the interaction of landing method and body size influenced post-release behaviour and short-term fate. Fight and handling time increased with increasing body size. Northern Pike landed with a cradle or net had shorter fight times but longer handling times, compared to fish landed by hand. Post-release locomotor activity was greater for larger fish and those landed with a net. Fish <775mm and landed by hand had greater locomotor activity than fish landed with a net or cradle, while fish >775mm landed by hand had reduced locomotor activity compared to fish landed with a net. There was no post-release mortality observed. Collectively, anglers should use a net for Northern Pike >775 mm to avoid long fight times and reduce post-release exhaustion, but also attempt to reduce the extent of handling associated with fish landed by net.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".