MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414017441 · doi:10.3390/fishes10090453

Preliminary Assessment of Age and Growth of the Red Swamp Crayfish Procambarus clarkii [Girard, 1852] in the River Nile in Egypt by Direct and Indirect Methods

2025· article· en· W4414017441 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Hesham Saeed, Raouf Kilada, Sahar F. Mehanna, Tarek M. Khalil

Bibliographic record

VenueFishes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalSaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcambarus clarkiiCrayfishSwampFisheryEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) is an exceptionally invasive species introduced into the Egyptian freshwater ecosystems in the 1980s for aquaculture purposes. Despite its ecological and economic significance, the age distribution of this species has not been assessed properly using an accurate method. This study is the first to validate the use of growth band counts in the mesocardiac ossicles as a direct technique for age determination in P. clarkii using 166 known-age individuals reared under various temperature regimes. The findings confirm that band counts represent age rather than number of molts. Field comparisons between northern (Giza) and southern (Aswan) Nile populations revealed maximum longevities of six and seven years, respectively, using direct methods, while indirect size–frequency analysis underestimated age at three years. Growth rates were higher at 25 °C compared to 32 °C, both in the lab and in situ. Males matured at larger sizes than females, though age at sexual maturity averaged one year in both regions. This study demonstrates the superiority of direct aging over traditional indirect aging methods, offering critical insights for managing crayfish populations and ensuring sustainable fisheries in the River Nile in Egypt.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFishesSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207