Freshwater Fisheries in Canada: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Resources and Their Management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract.—Canada has 215 native species of freshwater fishes, many of which are subdivided into ecologically and genetically distinct populations and population assemblages. Several systems are used to assess the conservation status of these species and population assemblages, the most extensive of which is that used by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) under the purview of Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA). Regular evaluation of the status of Canada’s freshwater fish fauna is important so we can assess how we are meeting Canada’s legal obligations to protect species at risk. Here, we review the importance of conservation of freshwater fishes, the process by which Canada’s freshwater fishes are assessed by COSEWIC, and how these assessments relate to the subsequent legal listing and recovery processes under SARA. We also summarize the numbers of species assessed as at risk (i.e., extirpated, endangered, threatened, or special concern), examine why they are at risk, discuss the major limitations to effective conservation of Canada’s freshwater fishes, and make recommendations to improve the performance of the assessment and listing processes in Canada. A total of 260 freshwater and diadromous fish “wildlife species†(which may comprise a species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population or set of populations) have been assessed as at some level of risk and 13 have been declared extinct and two extirpated from Canada. Habitat loss and degradation as well as invasive species are the most important factors driving at risk status. South-central British Columbia, southwestern Ontario, and southwestern Québec have the greatest number of freshwater fish wildlife species assessed as at risk by COSEWIC, but there are many cases where these fishes have not yet been legally listed for protection under SARA by the federal government. Weakened federal environmental legislation, limitations of the SARA process itself, lack of full implementation of SARA provisions and related environmental policies, and continued lack of understanding of critical aspects of the biology and demography of freshwater fishes all hinder effective protection. We strongly recommend immediate increased investment in research concerning the biology of Canada’s freshwater fish fauna, continued evaluation of the COSEWIC assessment and SARA listing processes, immediate adoption of formal definitions and quantitative benchmarks for recovery, and full and timely implementation of SARA provisions and related aspects of federal biodiversity policies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».