MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1939292940 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0238

Range-wide age and growth characteristics of shovelnose sturgeon from mark–recapture data: implications for conservation and management

2014· article· en· W1939292940 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin J. Hamel, Mark A. Pegg, Reuben R. Goforth, Quinton E. Phelps, Kirk D. Steffensen, Jeremy J. Hammen, Mathew L. Rugg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSturgeonMetapopulationTributaryMark and recaptureFisheryRange (aeronautics)Lake sturgeonPopulationEcologyBiologyFish migrationVital ratesGeographyFreshwater fishHabitatFish <Actinopterygii>Population growthAcipenserBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used mark–recapture data from shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) to describe range-wide growth characteristics and developed a model to estimate ages. Data were solicited throughout much of the current distribution of shovelnose sturgeon, specifically from the mainstem Missouri and Mississippi rivers and their tributaries. Shovelnose sturgeon exhibited variable growth among locations; however, adult fish exhibited almost no growth after they reached a particular size, presumably the size at sexual maturity. Shovelnose sturgeon from the Mississippi River basin attained greater maximum sizes and ages compared with the Missouri River basin. However, two populations from the Mississippi River that received high exploitation from commercial harvest had truncated age distributions with smaller asymptotic lengths. Lower Missouri River populations were characteristic of exploited populations (i.e., smaller fish and reduced longevity), presumably a result of anthropogenic effects. Wide discrepancies in maximum age and size suggest shovelnose sturgeon are capable of displaying phenotypic plasticity in response to exploitation or environmental influences. Determining metapopulation dynamics is a priority because it is unknown how population connectivity may influence dynamic rate functions and persistence of large-river fishes. Identifying potential source–sink connections in terms of population dynamics may provide a template for direction of future restoration and recovery efforts.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→