Does the quantity and timing of fresh water flowing into a dry tropical estuary affect year-class strength of barramundi (Lates calcarifer)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of fresh water flowing into estuaries on biological processes, such as recruitment of juvenile fish, is poorly understood, but important if freshwater resources are to be managed sustainably. Typically, lagged correlations between freshwater flows and fisheries production (i.e. catch) are used to support speculation that flows affect the survival of fish (and thus year-class strength) during their first year of life. The present study compares the relative strength of year classes in an estuarine fish population with two indices of fresh water flowing into the estuary, river flow and coastal rainfall. Year-class strength was estimated from a subset of the age structure of commercially caught adult barramundi (Lates calcarifer), which were sampled at seafood processors for three consecutive years. Strong and coherent fluctuations in year-class strength were observed. Positive correlations were found between the abundance of year classes (accounting for age) and quantity of fresh water flowing into the estuary during spring and summer, when barramundi spawn and young-of-the-year recruit to nursery habitats. Regression analysis was used to explore the relationships between year-class strength and environmental variables. A possible, but unproven, causal mechanism for the relationship is that the quantity of fresh water flowing into the estuary during spring and summer influences the survival of early life-history stages of barramundi (i.e. juvenile recruitment) by altering accessibility, productivity and or carrying capacity of nursery habitats.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".