Effect of aquatic macrophyte cover and fetch on spatial variability in the biomass and growth of littoral fishes in bays of Prince Edward County, Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomass and growth of Pumpkinseed ( Lepomis gibbosus), Yellow Perch ( Perca flavescens) and cohabiting species varied among different bays of Prince Edward County in eastern Lake Ontario. Biomass (B) and a calculated fish production (P) index of fishes, estimated as the product of average seasonal biomass and P/B, was about 6x higher at the electrofishing transects with medium to high macrophyte cover and low fetch than at sites where macrophytes were absent or sparse and fetch was high. The production index -aquatic plant relationship was species-dependent. The biomass component of fish production was related to macrophyte cover but the growth component and P/B (determined by allometry with body size) was not. Biomass and inferred production could be predicted from fetch, macrophyte abundance and water temperature, but with low precision. Results were consistent with index trawling in showing that changes in aquatic vegetation following Dreissena colonization in the Bay of Quinte and vicinity have affected the abundance of phytophilic fishes in this region of eastern Lake Ontario.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".