Behavioral repertoire of <i>Arapaima gigas </i>(Schinz, 1822) reared in captivity and its implication for welfare protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The well-being of farmed fish has gained considerable attention in the last few decades, and finding suitable indicators of fish welfare is particularly challenging assumed the diversity of species, each with unique biological needs and requirements. Understanding the behavioral patterns of farmed fish species is crucial in developing behavior-based measures to maintain their welfare and production. However, there is limited scientific documentation on the behavioral repertoire of Arapaima gigas, a commercially valuable and widely farmed species in South America. We provide an ethogram of A. gigas when reared in captivity within a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) indoors. Observations were conducted on a group of adult individuals (one male, two females) kept at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin, Germany. The ethogram describes five main behavioral categories: locomotion, feeding, social interactions, agonistic interactions, and breathing. Notably, Arapaima displayed a strong preference for resting motionless, often near a gravel bed area provided inside the rearing tank. Agonistic interactions were rare and mostly initiated solely by the male during feeding sessions. During feeding, pellet food was often picked from the ground, while whole fish feed (dead Tilapia) was mostly swallowed immediately from the surface. The male consistently occupied the provided gravel area as its territory, spending most of its time there. With this ethogram, we aim to contribute to the limited behavioral knowledge about A. gigas, especially when in captivity. Our findings offer valuable insights into species-specific welfare evaluations and enhancement measures with potential applications in healthy aquaculture practices.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".