Ecosystem level assessment of environmentally based flow restrictions for maintaining ecosystem integrity: a comparison of a modified peaking versus unaltered river
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although dams have impounded the majority of the world's altered watercourses, there is a growing awareness of the importance of mitigating or reversing some of the negative effects on aquatic ecosystems and the related services they provide. We used an ecosystem approach, including detailed studies on hydrology, geomorphology, invertebrates, fish, and food web dynamics on a river altered by waterpower production and a natural flowing river to assess system responses to a change in the altered flow regime (specifically the ramping rate or rate of change of flow). Although there was significant alteration in the flow and sediment regimes under the original restricted ramping rate regime, differences in many biotic variables in the two rivers were not significant including total invertebrate abundance and diversity, fish biomass, fish condition, and food web length. However, significant differences in the abundance and distribution of some sensitive invertebrate taxa and fish diversity were observed between the altered and natural flowing rivers as was the energy base of the food web, measured with stable isotopes. The altered river had lower overall abundance of Odonata, Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera, and Diptera, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Coleoptera increase in abundance towards the deeper and higher velocity thalweg. On average, δ13C values were lighter in altered sites compared to unaltered sites, likely due to carbon export from the upstream reservoir. Results will inform Canadian federal and provincial policy concerning the efficacy of ramping rate restrictions as a tool to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with peaking waterpower dam operations. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and Crown in the right of Canada
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".