Response of fish communities to different levels of white sucker (<i>Catostomus commersoni</i>) biomanipulation in five temperate lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to evaluate the response of white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and other fish species to the mass removal of white sucker in five Québec (Canada) lakes. White sucker removal ranged from 14.2 kg·ha1 to 31.3 kg·ha1 3 years after mass removal. In four of the study lakes, the proportion of 2+ to 4+ white sucker increased following mass removal. Mean catch and biomass per unit of effort of 1+ brook trout increased significantly in the lakes where white sucker removal was highest. All white sucker populations experienced growth increases after mass removal, and improved brook trout growth was observed in lakes where the most intensive mass removal occurred. These growth increases led to higher mean length at maturity in white sucker females and decreases in mean age at maturity in white sucker males and brook trout males and females. Mean adjusted fecundity significantly increased in white sucker and brook trout in lakes where mass removal was most intense. The present study suggests that white sucker and brook trout exhibit compensatory responses following a reduction of intra- and inter-specific competition and that these responses are related to the intensity of mass removal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".