Do in-stream restoration structures enhance salmonid abundance? A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of stream restoration structures to improve fish habitat, few quantitative studies have evaluated their effectiveness. This study uses a meta-analysis approach to test the effectiveness of five types of in-stream restoration structures (weirs, deflectors, cover structures, boulder placement, and large woody debris) on both salmonid abundance and physical habitat characteristics. Compilation of data from 211 stream restoration projects showed a significant increase in pool area, average depth, large woody debris, and percent cover, as well as a decrease in riffle area, following the installation of in-stream structures. There was also a significant increase in salmonid density (mean effect size of 0.51, or 167%) and biomass (mean effect size of 0.48, or 162%) following the installation of structures. Large differences were observed between species, with rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) showing the largest increases in density and biomass. This compilation highlights the potential of in-stream structures to create better habitat for and increase the abundance of salmonids, but the scarcity of long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of in-stream structures is problematic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".