Assessing the benefit of flow constraints on the drifting invertebrate community of a regulated river
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The downstream effects of hydroelectric dam operations on the abundance and diversity of the macroinvertebrate drift community of a regulated river were compared to that of an unregulated river, longitudinally and across three seasons. The regulated river operated under minimum flow and ramping rate (rate of change of flow) restrictions resulting in a ‘modified peaking’ regime, which means the facility could still peak, but at a slower rate and may not reach maximum turbine flows in the short time typically required to respond to market energy demand. The unregulated river had no dams or other water control structures. There was a trend of increasing abundance and diversity with distance from the dam on the regulated river, with no discernable trend along the unregulated river. While feeding guild proportions did not vary along the unregulated river, within the regulated river feeding guild proportions changed longitudinally as scrapers and collector gatherers increased, and filterers and predators decreased with distance downstream. The regulated river had similar or higher abundance across all seasons, with lower diversity in the spring. Seasonal average discharge was found to be lowest in summer on both rivers, with the regulated river benefiting from a minimum flow to help maintain higher abundance and diversity. Overall, our examination of the drifting invertebrate community on a regulated river support that operational constraints associated with modified peaking regimes helped mitigate the typical negative effects associated with river regulation. Copyright © 2010 Crown in the right of Canada and 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 | 0.000 | 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".