MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020651263 · doi:10.1080/10641260701689022

Manipulations of Stocking Magnitude: Addressing Density-Dependence in a Juvenile Cohort of Common Snook (<i>Centropomus undecimalis)</i>

2008· article· en· W2020651263 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan P. Brennan, Carl J. Walters, Kenneth M. Leber

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Fisheries Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMote Marine Laboratory and AquariumNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
KeywordsStockingJuvenileBiologyFisheryHatcheryAbundance (ecology)EcologyAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We released hatchery-reared juvenile common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) to test the effects of augmenting age-1 abundance by 100% (high augmentation, n = 2) vs 10% (low augmentation, n = 2) in estuarine creeks of southwestern Florida. We monitored in-creek abundance of age-1 snook 1 month before releases in May 2002 to estimate wild snook density and stocking magnitude. All sampling used seining standardized for effort, gear efficiency, and depletion removal. After releases, sampling continued for 1 year. After 1 month, creeks with high augmentation showed a 126% and 74% increase in total age-1 abundance, and low augmentation creeks a 6% increase and an 18% decrease. Total age-1 abundance declined during fall in all creeks, but by winter, abundance increased again, comparable to earlier levels (132% and 67% above the pre-release estimates in high augmented creeks and 8% and 5% in creeks with low augmentation). While overall density was elevated in both high augmentation creeks, hatchery-reared snook in one creek experienced a 64–85% loss within 1 month after release; loss of hatchery-reared or wild snook was negligible in other experimental creeks. Pre-release density was not a good predictor of creek productive capacity, suggesting variation in habitat production and localized recruitment. Further work is needed to understand inter-cohort density-dependent interactions, food chain responses, and variation in habitat productivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Fisheries ScienceSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207