Do live-well additives influence the physiological and behavioral recovery of Largemouth Bass?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective There is an ongoing effort to enhance the welfare and survival of black bass Micropterus spp. released after angling tournaments. Live-well additives are substances added to live-well water that are intended to help fish recover during retention. Aside from claims made by manufacturers, little information is available on the additives' effectiveness for recovery or their potential welfare consequences. Thus, our objective was to test whether live-well additives influence fish physiology and postrelease behavior. Methods Two techniques were used to test the influence of live-well additives on the welfare of angled Largemouth Bass M. nigricans (LMB) held in a live well with lake water (control) or one of three additive products. Prior to fish release, pop-off biologging packages were fastened to a subset of LMB to monitor behavior (locomotor activity, depth, and water temperature use) for 5 min (n = 61) and blood samples were taken from another subset of LMB to assess their physiology (n = 47). We obtained baseline (n = 9) blood samples from LMB immediately upon capture. Result Regardless of treatment, postrelease locomotor activity increased with increasing time spent in the live wells. Live-well additive type alone did not have an influence on the postrelease locomotor activity. Further, LMB retained in the live wells had greater blood glucose and lactate concentrations relative to baseline LMB, suggesting that fish did not recover from angling during retention in live wells. Other than elevated plasma chloride levels of LMB held in one of the live-well additives, plasma chloride and sodium concentrations for LMB in live wells with additives and for those in the control live well did not differ, suggesting that the LMB had not recovered while retained. Conclusion Our results suggest that the live-well additives tested did not enhance recovery or reduce confinement stress of LMB retained in live wells under the tested circumstances. Additional research on live-well additives is needed given that our findings did not align with the claims made by the manufacturers of these products. We suggest that anglers intending to retain fish in live wells should use fresh, well-oxygenated lake water.
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 | 0.001 | 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".