A caution for conservation stocking as an approach for recovering Atlantic eels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Worldwide concerns about declining eel stocks have resulted in the increased use of conservation stocking (i.e. the translocation of early eel life‐stages from areas of high recruitment to areas experiencing recruitment declines) as a recovery tool. North Atlantic eels have complicated and incompletely understood life‐history strategies with major differences in life‐history parameters across the species’ broad distributions, and these differences may be important for migrating and spawning successfully. Sex ratio, growth rate and size and age at maturation of American eels (Anguilla rostrata) stocked into the St. Lawrence River basin from donor areas over 2000 km away with differing life‐history characteristics were compared with those of naturally recruited eels to assess the effectiveness of a potential stocking programme in maintaining a sub‐population with unique life‐history characteristics (largest from across the species range, and exclusively female). Stocked eels exhibited faster annual growth, had a different sex ratio, and matured and outmigrated at smaller sizes and ages than naturally recruited eels. Conservation stocking should be applied with caution, as stocked eels appear to be following life‐history patterns comparable with conspecifics in the geographic range of the donor streams where they were collected. These findings cast doubt on the generally accepted hypothesis that the mechanisms driving eel life‐history variation are environmentally induced, and suggest that more care should be taken in assessing and matching the life‐history characteristics of donor and recipient sub‐populations if conservation stocking is expected to be an important recovery option for eel restoration. © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems © 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 | 0.028 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".