The influence of spawning habitat restoration on juvenile brown trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>) density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1992 and 2003, we assessed the density of age-0+ brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a channelized stream in northern Sweden, which was restored using two different schemes. One section of the stream was restored by the addition of boulders and reconstruction of gravel beds (boulder + gravel section), whereas another section was restored through addition of boulders only (boulder-only section). In addition, we compared the substrate size composition of gravel beds and the egg-to-fry survival between the two stream sections, and we related the density of age-0+ brown trout to the area of reconstructed gravel beds. After the restoration, the density of age-0+ brown trout increased significantly in the boulder + gravel section and was positively correlated with the area of reconstructed gravel beds. By contrast, the density of age-0+ brown trout did not change in the boulder-only treatment. Egg-to-fry survival was significantly higher in the boulder + gravel section compared with the boulder-only section, probably because of the higher content of sand and fines in the gravel beds of the latter treatment. This study shows that the density of age-0+ brown trout was limited by the availability and quality of spawning substrate rather than by the structural habitat complexity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".