Fish Assemblages and Environmental Variables Associated with Hard-Rock Mining in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program, fish assemblages, environmental variables, and associated mine densities were evaluated at 18 test and reference sites during the summer of 2000 in the Coeur d'Alene and St. Regis river basins in Idaho and Montana. Multimetric and multivariate analyses were used to examine patterns in fish assemblages and the associated environmental variables representing a gradient of mining intensity. The concentrations of cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) in water and streambed sediment found at test sites in watersheds where production mine densities were at least 0.2 mines/km2 (in a 500-m stream buffer) were significantly higher than the concentrations found at reference sites. Many of these metal concentrations exceeded Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) and the Canadian Probable Effect Level guidelines for streambed sediment. Regression analysis identified significant relationships between the production mine densities and the sum of Cd, Pb, and Zn concentrations in water and streambed sediment (r2 = 0.69 and 0.66, respectively; P < 0.01). Zinc was identified as the primary metal contaminant in both water and streambed sediment. Eighteen fish species in the families Salmonidae, Cottidae, Cyprinidae, Catostomidae, Centrarchidae, and Ictaluridae were collected. Principal components analysis of 11 fish metrics identified two distinct groups of sites corresponding to the reference and test sites, predominantly on the basis of the inverse relationship between percent cottids and percent salmonids (r = −0.64; P < 0.05). Streams located downstream from the areas of intensive hard-rock mining in the Coeur d'Alene River basin contained fewer native fish and lower abundances as a result of metal enrichment, not physical habitat degradation. Typically, salmonids were the predominant species at test sites where Zn concentrations exceeded the acute AWQC. Cottids were absent at these sites, which suggests that they are more severely affected by elevated metals than are salmonids.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".