Reach‐scale movements of bull trout (<i>Salvelinus confluentus</i>) relative to hydropeaking operations in the Columbia River, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite the widespread use of on‐demand hydropeaking operations for generating electricity from rivers, relatively little is known about how pulsed flows influence the behaviour of fishes. We studied the movements of bull trout by using radio telemetry in a hydropeaking reach of the upper Columbia River, near Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada. Fifty‐seven bull trout were located every 12 h to evaluate the effects of discharge magnitude and rate of change on the: (1) odds of movement; (2) movement distances; and (3) movement direction. Twelve‐hour mean discharge magnitude had a negative effect on the odds of bull movement: for every 100 m3 s−1 increase in discharge, movement odds decreased by a factor of 0·91. Movement odds were unrelated to 12‐h discharge rate of change. Every 1 °C increase in water temperature increased movement odds by a factor of 1·27. Also, bull trout were more likely to move during the AM versus PM by a factor of 1·36. Movement distances were related to diel period, sex and fork length; however, these effects were not very strong. We found no evidence of downstream displacement during periods of high or changing river discharge. In fact, movement direction was unpredictable, which is consistent with the salmonid non‐migratory movement literature. Collectively, these findings provide insight into the biology of bull trout during an understudied seasonal life‐history period (i.e. autumn). It also informs river managers that bull trout movement can be modulated by operational water release from a dam. Copyright © 2013 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".