Effects of physical enrichment on survival, growth, and physiology of captive-reared juvenile Lake Sturgeon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective We investigated whether physical enrichment can be used at the captive-rearing stage to promote a more natural phenotype and better prepare juvenile Lake Sturgeon for the variability of the natural environment upon release. Methods We exposed age-0 Lake Sturgeon to different types of physical enrichment for 6 months. We used four treatments: a nonenriched (control) tank, a tank with gravel substrate, a tank with vertical structures, and a tank with both gravel substrate and vertical structures. We tracked the survivorship, growth, and body condition of each fish throughout the experiment and analyzed their dorsal color pattern prior to and following 5 months of enrichment exposure. At the end of the experiment (6 months), we measured several physiological parameters, including metabolic rate, plasma cortisol, and critical thermal maximum. Results We observed mortalities in all the enriched tanks but not in the nonenriched tank. Growth rate and body condition varied considerably between enrichment treatments across time. The fish that were reared with structures alone displayed a lower routine metabolic rate and higher aerobic scope than those in all the other treatment groups. We did not observe any effects of enrichment on the critical thermal maximum or the baseline or stress-induced cortisol levels in these fish. Conclusions We recommend that hatchery managers add structures that allow for sheltering and resting behaviors to the rearing environment of age-0 Lake Sturgeon for a few months prior to release. Our study highlights the value of physical enrichment for improving the welfare of captive-reared fish, which could translate to higher rates of postrelease survival and success for reintroduced age-0 Lake Sturgeon.
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".