Fish and hydropower on the U.S. Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half‐way technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Globally, diadromous species are at risk from fragmentation by damming of rivers, and a host of other anthropogenic factors. On the United States Atlantic Coast, where diadromous fish populations have undergone dramatic declines, restoration programs based on fishway construction and hatcheries have sustained remnant populations, but large‐scale restoration has not been achieved. We examine anadromous fish restoration programs on three large Atlantic Coast rivers, the Susquehanna, Connecticut, and Merrimack with multiple mainstem hydropower dams, most with relatively low generating capacity. Mean passage efficiencies through fishways on these rivers from the first dam to the spawning grounds for American shad are less than 3%. The result is that only small fractions of targeted fish species are able to complete migrations. It may be time to admit failure of fish passage and hatchery‐based restoration programs and acknowledge that significant diadromous species restoration is not possible without dam removals. The approach being employed on the Penobscot River, where dams are being removed or provided the opportunity to increase power generation within a plan to provide increased access to habitat, offers a good model for restoration. Dammed Atlantic Coastal rivers offer a cautionary tale for developing nations intent on hydropower development, suggesting that lasting ecosystem‐wide impacts cannot be compensated for through fish passage and hatchery technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".