PHOTOPHASE AND ILLUMINATION EFFECTS ON THE SWIMMING PERFORMANCE AND BEHAVIOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photophase and illumination affect many fish activities. In this study, we examined their effects on the critical swimming velocities (Ucrit), swimming gait patterns, and oral grasping behavior of five California estuarine fishes. All species (4-5 cm SL) swam similarly (mean Ucrit range:30-36 cm/s) under day/light conditions. However, both nighttime photophase and darkness decreased Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) swimming velocities. Congeneric Wakasagi (H. nipponensis) swimming performance also decreased at night/dark conditions. Regardless of photophase and illumination, Delta Smelt, Wakasagi, and Splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) exhibited three swimming gaits: intermittent stroke-and-glide at low velocities, continuous stroking at moderate velocities, and intermittent burst-and-glide at high velocities near Ucrit. In contrast, Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) used only two swimming gaits: continuous stroking and burst-and-glide under all conditions. Inland Silversides (Menidia beryllina) used these two gaits under light conditions and all three gaits under dark conditions. Some Wakasagi, Splittail, and Chinook Salmon orally grasped the upstream screen in the flume at moderate to high water velocities. Oral grasping does not require jaw teeth and may represent adaptive behavior in natural habitats. Regarding vulnerability to water diversions that operate in the dark at night, the threatened Delta Smelt and introduced Wakasagi, comparatively, may be more at risk than the other species.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".