A comparison of species assemblages between drainage systems with and without floodgates: implications for coastal floodplain management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal floodplains provide essential nursery habitat for a large number of fish and prawn species, many of which are commercially and recreationally important. Human activities in coastal floodplains, such as those associated with agriculture and (or) development, can have detrimental impacts on this nursery function. We examined the potential role of flood mitigation structures, in particular tidal floodgates, in depleting estuarine and inshore fisheries stocks in eastern Australia. We compared species assemblages (abundance and biomass) in reference and gated drainage systems in the Clarence River floodplain (New South Wales, Australia) over a 1-year period. We subsequently determined which environmental variables were associated with the observed patterns in species assemblages. Our results show that abundance, biomass, and assemblages of juvenile fishes and invertebrates differed significantly and consistently between drainage systems with and without floodgates. The major environmental variables of concern in systems with floodgates were (i) presence of a floodgate, (ii) elevated concentrations of nutrients, and (iii) abundance of aquatic weeds. We discuss our findings in light of potential strategies to improve coastal floodplain management for fisheries production purposes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".