MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112872594 · doi:10.1139/f01-160

Direct and indirect effects of sediment pulse duration on stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) growth and survival

2001· article· en· W2112872594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth A. Shaw, John S. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutBenthic zoneInvertebrateSpecies richnessTroutSedimentBiologyAbundance (ecology)EcologyPredationOncorhynchusFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevated concentrations of inorganic sediment supply in streams may impair many biological functions. However, the contribution of exposure duration to the observed impacts has not been previously considered. We evaluated the effects of sediment pulse duration using 14 streamside flow-through experimental channels, each of which contained a naturally colonised invertebrate assemblage and 10 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fry. Channels were exposed to fine sediment pulses of constant concentration but varied pulse duration (ranging from 0 to 6 h) every second day over 19 days. Total abundance of benthic invertebrate and family richness declined as sediment pulse duration increased. Invertebrate drift total abundance increased as pulse duration increased; however, family richness of drift decreased. Trout length and mass gain over the 19-day period was negatively correlated with pulse duration. Path analysis suggests that the direct effects of fine sediment on trout (impaired vision leading to reduced prey capture success and (or) increased metabolic costs from physiological stress) are more important to trout growth than indirect effects (decreased drift and benthic invertebrate richness and drift abundance).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations148
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207