Influence of Stream Discharge on Reproductive Success of a Prairie Stream Fish Assemblage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied the relationship between stream discharge and reproductive success for five members of a prairie stream fish assemblage. Based on information obtained from the literature, we constructed seven models relating stream discharge to successful reproduction. To assess the utility of our models, we collected larval and juvenile Arkansas River shiners Notropis girardi, peppered chub Macrhybopsis tetranema, plains minnow Hybognathus placitus, flathead chub Platygobio gracilis, and red shiners Cyprinella lutrensis from the Canadian River, Texas, during 2000–2001. We removed otoliths and counted daily growth increments to determine ages. Models were parameterized by use of age and discharge data. Models were evaluated with the Akaike information criterion likelihood statistic to assess which model(s) best described reproductive success for each species. Of the seven models evaluated, the best overall model predicted that reproductive success was uniform across dates when discharge was present in the river; however, reproduction was predicted to be unsuccessful during periods when the river was confined to isolated pools. These results suggest that the presence of discharge in the river may be more important for successful reproduction of prairie stream cyprinids than the magnitude of discharge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".