ABIOTIC & BIOTIC RESPONSES OF THE COLORADO RIVER TO CONTROLLED FLOODS AT GLEN CANYON DAM, ARIZONA, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Closure of Glen Canyon Dam reduced sand supply to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park by about 94% while its operation has also eroded the park's sandbar habitats. Three controlled floods released from the dam since 1995 suggest that sandbars might be rebuilt and maintained, but only if repeated floods are timed to follow tributary sand deliveries below the dam. Monitoring data show that sandbars are dynamic and that their erosion after bar building is positively related with mean daily discharge and negatively related with tributary sand production after controlled floods. The March 2008 flood affected non‐native rainbow trout abundance in the Lees Ferry tailwater, which supports a blue ribbon fishery. Downstream trout dispersal from the tailwater results in negative competitive interactions and predation on endangered humpback chub. Early survival rates of age‐0 trout increased more than fourfold following the 2008 flood, and twofold in 2009, relative to prior years (2006–2007). Hatch‐date analysis indicated that early survival rates were much higher for cohorts that emerged about 2 months after the 2008 flood relative to cohorts that emerged earlier that year. The 2009 survival data suggest that tailwater habitat improvements persisted for at least a year, but apparently decreased in 2010. Increased early survival rates for trout coincided with the increased availability of higher quality drifting food items after the 2008 flood owing to an increase in midges and black flies, preferred food items of rainbow trout. Repeated floods from the dam might sustainably rebuild and maintain sandbars if released when new tributary sand is available below the tailwater. Spring flooding might also sustain increased trout abundance and benefit the tailwater fishery, but also be a potential risk to humpback chub in Grand Canyon. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".