Year-Class Formation of Upper St. Lawrence River Northern Pike
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Variables associated with year-class formation in upper St. Lawrence River northern pike Esox lucius were examined to explore population trends. A partial least-squares (PLS) regression model (PLS 1) was used to relate a year-class strength index (YCSI; 1974–1997) to explanatory variables associated with spawning and nursery areas (seasonal water level and temperature and their variability, number of ice days, and last day of ice presence). A second model (PLS 2) incorporated four additional ecological variables: potential predators (abundance of double-crested cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus and yellow perch Perca flavescens), female northern pike biomass (as a measure of stock–recruitment effects), and total phosphorus (productivity). Trends in adult northern pike catch revealed a decline (1981–2005), and year-class strength was positively related to catch per unit effort (CPUE; R2 = 0.58). The YCSI exceeded the 23-year mean in only 2 of the last 10 years. Cyclic patterns in the YCSI time series (along with strong year-classes every 4–6 years) were apparent, as was a dampening effect of amplitude beginning around 1990. The PLS 1 model explained over 50% of variation in both explanatory variables and the dependent variable, YCSI first-order moving-average residuals. Variables retained (N = 10; Wold's statistic ≥ 0.8) included negative YCSI associations with high summer water levels, high variability in spring and fall water levels, and variability in fall water temperature. The YCSI exhibited positive associations with high spring, summer, and fall water temperature, variability in spring temperature, and high winter and spring water level. The PLS 2 model led to positive YCSI associations with phosphorus and yellow perch CPUE and a negative correlation with double-crested cormorant abundance. Environmental variables (water level and temperature) are hypothesized to regulate northern pike YCSI cycles, and dampening in YCSI magnitude may be related to a combination of factors, including wetland habitat changes, reduced nutrient loading, and increased predation by double-crested cormorants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".