Environmental Influences on Fish Migration in a Hydropeaking River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish have evolved traits and life history characteristics that enable them to survive, exploit and depend on the flow regime of rivers, particularly the timing and predictability of flows for spawning and rearing their young. It is unclear to what degree pulsed flows from hydropower facilities and other environmental variables influence migratory behaviours. We used Dual Frequency Identification Sonar in the Michipicoten River, Canada, to address the relationship between fish migration and environmental factors with a focus on flow magnitude and fluctuation. In both 2007 and 2009, the peak of the Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) migration occurred on 8 September. Mean water temperature on this date was 18 °C and precipitously dropped afterwards. The photoperiod was roughly 12-h long with sunrise at 700 h and sunset at 2000 h. Most fishes moved upstream during the hours of darkness between 2000 and 600 h. The lowest counts of fish occurred from noon to just before sunset, whereas highest counts commonly occurred from 1 to 2 h after sunset. Fish moved upstream during all magnitudes of flow; however, there was a slight preference for larger flows in 2007 but not in 2009. Changes in flow magnitude occurred both during the day and night, with flows typically increasing during the day to meet electrical demand and decreasing at night. Most fishes moved upstream during periods of little to no change in flow. High flows and changing flows may deter salmon from moving up the Michipicoten River but not likely in a significant manner to cause energetic stress or harm. Other adverse effects of pulsed flows, however, must still be considered for spawning, hatching and rearing success. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.001 | 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".