Population Dynamics of Lake Ontario Lake Trout during 1985–2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush were extirpated from Lake Ontario circa 1950 owing to commercial and recreational fishing, predation by sea lampreys Petromyzon marinus, and habitat degradation. Since the 1970s, substantial efforts have been devoted to reestablishing a self-sustaining population through stocking, sea lamprey control, and harvest reduction. Although a stocking-supported population has been established, only limited natural reproduction has been detected. Since the 1990s, surveys have indicated a continuing decline in overall abundance despite fairly static stocking levels. We constructed a statistical catch-at-age model to describe the dynamics of Lake Ontario lake trout from 1985 to 2007 and explore what factor(s) could be causing the declines in abundance. Model estimates indicated that abundance had declined by approximately 76% since 1985. The factor that appeared most responsible for this was an increase in age-1 natural mortality rates from approximately 0.9 to 2.5 between 1985 and 2002. The largest source of mortality for age-2 and older fish was sea lamprey predation, followed by natural and recreational fishing mortality. Exploitation was low, harvest levels being uncertain and categorized by length rather than age. Accurate predictions of fishery harvest and survey catch per unit effort were obtained despite low harvest levels by using atypical data (e.g., numbers stocked as an absolute measure of recruitment) and a flexible modeling approach. Flexible approaches such as this might allow similar assessments for a wide range of lightly exploited stocks. The mechanisms responsible for declining age-1 lake trout survival are unknown, but the declines were coincident with an increase in the proportion of stocked fish that were of the Seneca strain and a decrease in the overall stocking rate. It is possible that earlier studies suggesting that Seneca strain lake trout would be successful in Lake Ontario are no longer applicable given the large ecosystem changes that have occurred subsequent to invasion by dreissenid mussels. Received January 19, 2011; accepted July 6, 2011
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 | 0.000 | 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".