MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974560321 · doi:10.1139/f01-088

Predicting mercury levels in yellow perch: use of water chemistry, trophic ecology, and spatial traits

2001· article· en· W1974560321 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ben K. Greenfield, Thomas R. Hrabik, Chris J. Harvey, Stephen R. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerchTrophic levelPredatory fishEcologyBiologyWetlandForage fishFreshwater fishPopulationFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Predation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research suggests that wetland abundance surrounding lakes, fish trophic position, and fish community composition may influence the bioavailability of mercury (Hg) to fish. To compare the importance of these spatial and biological factors to chemical factors known to influence bioavailability, we determined the relationship between 24 lake traits and Hg concentrations in yellow perch (Perca flavescens; whole fish samples) for 43 northern Wisconsin lakes. Independent variables included biological traits such as fish trophic position and body condition, spatial traits such as lake hydrologic position and surrounding wetland abundance, and chemical traits such as pH and water color. The strongest predictor of fish Hg levels was pH (R 2 = 0.42; p &lt; 0.002). Of the biological traits measured, yellow perch body condition explained significant additional variation (final R 2 = 0.54; p = 0.024). Trophic position explained limited variability and population abundance of planktivores and piscivores were not correlated to perch Hg levels. Regression tree models indicated that small lakes with greater than 6% wetland in their watershed have moderately elevated fish Hg levels. Our results indicate that within-lake chemistry and fish growth patterns are stronger correlates of Hg levels in yellow perch than spatial traits, trophic position, or fish community attributes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations125
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207