Vertical Distribution of Fish Biomass in Lake Superior: Implications for Day Bottom Trawl Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evaluation of the biases in sampling methodology is essential for understanding the limitations of abundance and biomass estimates of fish populations. Estimates from surveys that rely solely on bottom trawls may be particularly vulnerable to bias if pelagic fish are numerous. We evaluated the variability in the vertical distribution of fish biomass during the U.S. Geological Survey's annual spring bottom trawl survey of Lake Superior using concurrent hydroacoustic observations to (1) test the assumption that fish are generally demersal during the day and (2) evaluate the potential for predictive models to improve bottom trawl–determined biomass estimates. Our results indicate that the assumption that fish exhibit demersal behavior during the annual spring bottom trawl survey in Lake Superior is unfounded. Bottom trawl biomass (BBT) estimates (mean ± SE) for species known to exhibit pelagic behavior (cisco Coregonus artedi, bloater C. hoyi, kiyi C. kiyi, and rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax; 3.01 ± 0.73 kg/ha) were not significantly greater than mean acoustic pelagic zone biomass (BAPZ) estimates (6.39 ± 2.03 kg/ha). Mean BAPZ estimates were 1.6- to 4.8-fold greater than mean BBT estimates over 4 years of sampling. The relationship between concurrent BAPZ and BBT estimates was marginally significant and highly variable. Predicted BAPZ estimates using cross-validation models were sensitive to adjustments for back-transforming from the logarithmic to the linear scale and poorly corresponded to observed BAPZ estimates. We conclude that statistical models to predict BAPZ from day BBT cannot be developed. We propose that night sampling with multiple gears will be necessary to generate better biomass estimates for management needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".