The Role of the Champlain Canal and Erie Canal as Putative Corridors for Colonization of Lake Champlain and Lake Ontario by Sea Lampreys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The origin of populations of the landlocked Sea LampreyPetromyzon marinusin Lakes Champlain and Ontario, whether by artificial canals or by natural colonization following the last ice age, is controversial, in part because the related history and ecology had been poorly documented. This situation favored a native classification for the populations in both lakes based mainly on genetics. A native classification for the Lake Champlain population was predicated on either of two erroneous dates of first record, 1841 and 1894, whereas the correct date, 1929, was much more recent and strongly supports a nonnative classification. The detection of the Sea Lamprey in Lake Champlain occurred shortly after the opening in 1916 of the Champlain Barge Canal, which opened the upper Hudson River to fish passage. The case for a native Lake Ontario population did not account for a watershed breach in 1863 between the Susquehanna River, where the Sea Lamprey had been common, and the Lake Ontario drainage. Shortly after this canal‐related connection was made, Sea Lamprey populations became abundant, nearly simultaneously, in four locations in the Lake Ontario drainage, suggesting this breach was the entry point for the founding population. The genetic distances between the landlocked populations and the Atlantic Ocean population appear to have been caused by recent bottlenecks rather than long‐term residence; a recent genetic bottleneck was detected in the Lake Ontario population. Native classifications rested, in part, on extraordinary ecological scenarios, whereas nonnative classifications are consistent with experience in the upper Great Lakes and with well‐known vectors of range expansion (canals, dam openings, watershed breaches). These findings in aggregate favor a nonnative classification of the Sea Lamprey in both lakes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".