MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117387149 · doi:10.1029/2025jg009299

A Growing Degree‐Day Approach to Estimate Larval Hatching Sites Using Backtracking Simulations Without Larval Age

2025· article· en· W7117387149 on OpenAlexafffund
Wei Shi, Leon Boegman, Josef Daniel Ackerman, Shiliang Shan, Touyue Yang, Keoni J. Chong, Yingming Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryRoyal Military College of CanadaUniversity of GuelphQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryCalgary Arts DevelopmentMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsLarvaHatchingPopulationOtolithShore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Walleye ( Sander vitreus ) are a valuable commercial and sport fishery in the North American Great Lakes, yet the relative contributions of known spawning sites to the Lake Erie population remain poorly understood. Backward‐in‐time Lagrangian particle tracking (backtracking) models have been widely applied to estimate larval origins, but the required simulation duration (i.e., larval age), typically derived from otoliths, often remains unknown. We developed a novel proof‐of‐concept approach to estimate larval age without otolith data, using an observed exponential relationship between the total length of tank‐reared Walleye larvae and growing degree‐days (GDD °C days): , where = 8.34 mm is length at hatch and = 0.0027 (°C days) −1 . GDD for wild larvae was estimated from measured length. Using temperatures experienced by larvae along their paths from backtracking models, we estimated larval age and the origins of observed Walleye larvae in western Lake Erie. Larval age predicted by the GDD‐age model were 72% of those estimated using an age‐length curve from the tank‐reared Walleye and 53% of those estimated using a common GDD‐approach based on mean‐basin temperatures. In all three approaches, larvae were backtracked to the southern shore of the western basin, with 43%–60% originating from hard substrates. We neglected differences in environmental conditions between the tank‐reared and wild‐hatched larvae, which affected the values of and . Sensitivity analyses showed <12% variation in had negligible effects on predicted hatching sites. Our novel GDD approach is an additional tool for estimating larval age and simulating larval origins when otolith data are unavailable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research BiogeosciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207