MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103687896 · doi:10.1002/rrr.607

Hindrances to upstream migration of atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) in a northern Swedish river caused by a hydroelectric power‐station

2001· article· en· W2103687896 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Rivinoja, Skip McKinnell, Hans Lundqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueRegulated Rivers Research & Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsNorth Pacific Marine Science Organization
FundersSvenskt Vatten
KeywordsSalmoHydroelectricityFisheryHydrology (agriculture)Channel (broadcasting)HatcheryEnvironmental scienceFish migrationEstuaryFish <Actinopterygii>GeologyEcologyEngineeringTelecommunicationsGeotechnical engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many Baltic salmon rivers have lost their natural juvenile production due to human activities blocking or reducing access to their spawning grounds, e.g. damming, power generation, partial hinders, etc. One such hindrance is a hydroelectric complex located in the lower reaches of River Umeälven in northern Sweden. Water from the forbay created by the dam Norrfors is directed to the Stornorrfors power‐station. At times, 100% of the river water is directed to the power‐station. Water from the power‐station then flows via a tunnel and outlet channel to the river. From the point of the tunnel's discharge into the river, the old river bed acts as a bypass channel directing migrating adult fish to a fish ladder located at the base of the dam. In this study, the effect that an additional turbine, that was installed at the power‐station in 1986, had on fish passage run‐time was examined. Changes in run‐time were compared for two periods 1974–1985 and 1986–1995. In 1997, 55 wild and 25 hatchery salmon were captured in the Umeälven estuary, radio tagged with uniquely coded tags, and tracked upstream. Both manual and automatic loggers were used to locate fish daily. The main findings show that only 26% of the wild salmon and none of the hatchery salmon found the fish ladder. It is suggested that the salmon followed the main water discharge from the power‐station outlet and are thus directed away from the entrance to the bypass channel leading to the fish ladder. Salmon respond by moving upstream or downstream depending on the current flow regimes. The bypass channel consists of partial hinders that may explain why it takes on average 52 days for the salmon to migrate 32 km from the estuary to the fish ladder. Adding a fourth turbine at the power‐station did not appear to have changed the timing of the migration or the seasonal distribution of the migrating wild salmon through the fish ladder. There was no significant effect of the fourth turbine on the duration of the middle 50% of the run in any weight‐class for wild salmon. Daily turbine discharges or ambient water temperature and daily counts of wild salmon at the fish ladder were not related. Copyright © 2001 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegulated Rivers Research & ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207