MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998271618 · doi:10.1139/f05-229

Fish predation and trapping for rusty crayfish (<i>Orconectes rusticus</i>) control: a whole-lake experiment

2006· article· en· W1998271618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine L. Hein, Brian M. Roth, Anthony R. Ives, M. Jake Vander Zanden

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCrayfishPredationPopulationBiologyFisheryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved methods are needed for the prevention and control of invasive species. We investigated the potential to control a rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) population in an isolated lake in northern Wisconsin by trapping adult crayfish and restricting fishing, thereby increasing fish populations and predation on small crayfish. Over a 3 year period, traps and predatory fishes removed substantial portions of the rusty crayfish population. We used an age-structured population model to determine which removal method had the largest effect on crayfish population growth rates. Because more crayfish were vulnerable to and removed by fish predation than by trapping, fish predation caused a larger decline in the population growth rate. However, trapping removed crayfish with the highest reproductive value and caused the largest decline in population growth rate per individual crayfish removed. Consideration of density-dependent responses to removal is necessary to predict long-term effects on rusty crayfish population dynamics. Nonetheless, our results suggest that the combination of trapping and fish predation can control established rusty crayfish populations and deserves further consideration for management.

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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations101
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207